LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
tsig said:
I believe that Roman Emperors where promoted to godhead after death.
Click to expand...
Probably, I think when it comes to novelty and religion the Bible got it mostly right, "...there is no new thing under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9

That was circa 970 BC. :boggled:
 
RandFan said:
Probably, I think when it comes to novelty and religion the Bible got it mostly right, "...there is no new thing under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9

That was circa 970 BC. :boggled:
Click to expand...


It's always been my favorite book of the bible.
 
"Becoming a god" in the sense of joining an already crowded pantheon isn't really the same thing as becoming the single supreme god of a separate universe. I think that particular LDS doctrine is unique or at least highly unusual.

But the claim under discussion isn't of a unique mythic narrative (whether true or false), but a unique spiritual insight. To me, real spiritual insights are applicable to life in our world. They might be linked to mythic narratives, but in the end they have to apply to here and now. For instance, Christian narratives of God's forgiveness (as expressed, for example, in the parable of the Prodigal Son), have inspired some people to acts of forgiveness in their own lives that, they claim, have helped them cope with having suffered intolerable wrongs. Of course, that idea is not easy to put into effect, and it is not unique to any one faith.

So, what actual spiritual insight flows from the narrative of the elite becoming gods of their own universes after death? If we posit that as true, what does it help us understand or achieve in our own lives? How does it differ, in application to real-world decisions, from the promise of heaven or the threat of hell found in the narratives of other Christian sects?

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
1) One reason for Christ's atonement was to appease justice. This principle is well known, but only the BoM explains it adequately: "Alma asked, 'What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay, not one whit" (Alma 42:25). Scharffs explains: "In other words, in order that we be granted mercy if we follow his teachings, Jesus offered himself as payment for our sins so that the requirements of justice could be met."
Click to expand...

Islam. Something very similar to Mormonism in other ways too.

2) Scharffs: "Many Christians think of the Fall as a great tragedy and believe that Adam and Eve were wicked sinners and that the Atonement was necessary to compensate for their mistake. . . . The BoM clarifies the relationship between the Fall and the Atonement." Scharffs then quotes Lehi who explains that if the Fall had not occurred, "all things must have remained in the same state" forever. Adam and Eve would not have had children. Moreover, "there would be no joy because there would be no sorrow, no righteousness because there would be no evil" (Scharffs).
Click to expand...

Taoism. Except for the Adam and Eve supernatural stuff.

3) Satan's power is not clearly explained in the Bible; thus, the Bible overlooks a critically important purpose of the Atonement. But the BoM does not: "O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to . . . the devil" (2 Ne. 9:8). "Abinadi [explained] that the devil would have power over mankind because the Fall 'was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish . . . subjecting themselves to the devil" (Mosiah 16:3).
Click to expand...
I'm not sure the belief that Satan being elevated to an out of favor son of God rather than merely a fallen angel is helpful. I guess while this might indeed be a teaching, but it would argue against critical exegesis of Bible texts. Angels and demons would need to come thousands of years before their assimilation by Persian contact.

4) Scharff: "Most people recognize that human beings have the ability to differentiate between right and wrong, but many wonder what the conscience really is. . . . Mormon taught, 'The Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil' (Moro. 7:16). The fact that man's conscience is enlightened by the Spirit of Christ gives a new dimension to the role of and office held by the Lord Jesus Christ."
Click to expand...

Quakerism. There was much exposure of the early church to Quaker communities (near Kirtland Ohio for example), also varieties of 1800's utopianism from the 'Burned Over District' in western New York.

The unique message of the Book of Mormon though, is to take a stand against the kind of liberalism that the Age of Enlightenment was promoting. That scripture was not literal, miracles were more like myths than something real. That the Bible should be seen as more like a source of inspiration than a manual for living. These new, modern ideas are what the Book of Mormon outright rejects.

The idea that the star of Bethlehem might be an alignment of planets is rejected as nonsense - there was literally a bright new star. Just not recorded by anyone in history like the Chinese who recorded other celestial events and would surely have noted it.

Jesus descends from heaven in great glory, no faith required. This is a great supernatural event following days of pitch darkness at his death. A worldwide event.

There are immortals still walking alive today in the world.

God is alive and actively working to influence the course of history.

There is no real place in the BoM for taking a view that the book is allegorical, or any need for what Christians would call 'critical' reading of scripture. Commonly accepted scholastic ideas like there being two Isaiahs must be rejected as heresy, because it would make the BoM false. The whole notion of understanding scripture in a critical sense is unknown in Mormonism.
 
skyrider44 said:
You are well settled into an atheistic paradigm. I would have thought, however, that within the context of scripture and attendant religious belief, you would have been able to see that the BoM offers some unique insights.

Courses are offered at universities virtually worldwide entitled "The Bible as Literature." Professors who teach those courses and the students who take them are not necessarily Christian. Yet they have the intellectual maturity and academic curiosity to set aside personal beliefs and examine the Bible on its merits as literature.

I regret that you seem unable to do that with the BoM.
Click to expand...
I'm happy to discuss the morality of going back in time to kill Hitler so I have no problem per se with using theoretical impossibilities to explore issues. It's just that (as Kopji's post so eloquently demonstrates) Mormons are well known for insisting that obvious fiction is historical fact, so it seemed a good idea to check that you at least recognise that the story of Adam and Eve and the Fall not only never happened but is indeed theoretically impossible before launching into a discussion as to whether explanations and justifications of it can be considered spiritual insights.
 
I've read over the many interesting replies skywalker44 received to their latest summation of unique insights based on Smith's hoaxes.


I'll second the query of Pixel42
Pixel42 said:
You do know that Adam and Eve never really existed, right? That it's just a story? That homo sapiens evolved over millions of years? That there was no "Fall"?
Click to expand...


I'll also rephrase my own question.
What justification is there to perpetrate the cold-blooded fraud that's the BoA?
 
If anyone is questioning their faith I only wish them well, even if they decide to stay.

I kept my scriptures for a long time. It was helpful to gather them together and place them in a storage box in case I ever believed again. I threw them all out one day a year or two later without opening the box again. It would have been too hard to just say I was wrong all at once. This is really the best advice I have if someone is really thinking of leaving - take it in steps. And maybe always expect to feel a little messed up, like having been raised in a protective bubble and then suddenly free.

It helps that the Book of Mormon I was raised on has different verse numbering than the ones the LDS use (there are three different versions). The better to avoid scripture and verse bickering. Our D&C was different also. The LDS Book of Moses is rejected as falseness so I never feel the need to defend it. In place of 'The Pearl of Great Price' is the "Inspired Version" - a sort of inspired revision of the KJV that was done by Smith, and carried sewn into the clothing of Emma Smith during the time of the Mormon Wars.

To say something kind about Joseph Smith? Much of what I was taught is called 'hagiography', a word worth looking up if you are not familiar with it. Even today there is no DNA evidence that says any of the women who claimed to be his wives had children by him. I sort of wish that there was some kind of definitive evidence that would make have made the journey easier.

JS was more than a simple fraud though, I get the feeling that at some level he wanted to be leader of a great religious change of direction - and he did that but also had a certain blindness about his failures that is required of all great leaders. There is a bit of human floatsam and jetsam in his wake - look up the story of Martin Harris, one of the 'three witnesses'. Maybe make that two witnesses but three sounds so much better.

I'd predict that Mormonism will be the last bastion of uncritical thinking in America, long after the regular Christians have turned out the lights on literalism and supernatural beliefs.
 
The word HAGIOGRAPHY has a certain pejorative set of baggage, much like "dogma" does, in one of its meanings [2].

 1. biography of saints or venerated persons
2. idealizing or idolizing biography

The second accepted meaning gives rise to my understanding of the word when it is used:
a book about someone's life that makes it seem better than it really is or was : a biography that praises someone too much
Click to expand...
There are some excellent examples in the history books, but one of my favorites are the writings about Kim Jong Il:

Kim Jong Il is a perfect modern day example of a hagiography in the making. Just like his father before him, the official biography of Kim states that he was born on a mythical mountain under a double rainbow and that his birth was foretold. There are claims of his immortal exploits and his divine right to rule.

According to this, Kim is just shy of a god. These are obvious fabrications, but along with these, there are some, and I reiterate some, historically accurate dates and such. Does this make it a historically valid document? Well, yes, but it does not make it historically accurate.
Click to expand...
 
Myriad said:
1"Becoming a god" in the sense of joining an already crowded pantheon isn't really the same thing as becoming the single supreme god of a separate universe. I think that particular LDS doctrine is unique or at least highly unusual.

2But the claim under discussion isn't of a unique mythic narrative (whether true or false), but a unique spiritual insight. To me, real spiritual insights are applicable to life in our world. They might be linked to mythic narratives, but in the end they have to apply to here and now. For instance, Christian narratives of God's forgiveness (as expressed, for example, in the parable of the Prodigal Son), have inspired some people to acts of forgiveness in their own lives that, they claim, have helped them cope with having suffered intolerable wrongs. Of course, that idea is not easy to put into effect, and it is not unique to any one faith.

3So, what actual spiritual insight flows from the narrative of the elite becoming gods of their own universes after death? If we posit that as true, what does it help us understand or achieve in our own lives? How does it differ, in application to real-world decisions, from the promise of heaven or the threat of hell found in the narratives of other Christian sects?

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...
Good post.


  1. In the interest of full disclosure I'm the one who introduced that concept into this particular sub discussion and it is fair to note that it is not a concept found in the BoM. I agree with you which is why I tried to point out that there were at least precursors to the idea. Human ideas seldom come completely out of the blue. But I think it fair to point out that the doctrine, as outlined by Mormon prophets (who have since backed away from it a bit), is novel in many aspects. I agree with your premise.
  2. I agree. I find the concept of an eye for an eye compelling (though arguably not a spiritual insight). Commensurate punishment, AIU, was novel at that time (though cruel and unusual had yet to be introduced to the moral zeitgeist). I find the concept of forgiveness, forbearance, charity and compassion as outlined by the Christ character in the Bible to compelling if not a bit black and white at times. I find the story of the Prodigal Son compelling, I find the story of the Good Samaritan compelling. Interestingly enough I think based on your definition there is more spiritual insight in Eastern and Greek philosophy than religion of that time and perhaps throughout history that is so.
  3. My point was primarily grasping at straws to at least find something novel. In that spirit I would add the concept of eternal families.

I think perhaps the difference between theology and philosophy in general is that religious insight is often just appealing to existing sentiment (empathy, compassion, familial love, etc.) whereas philosophical insight tells us something about ourselves that we previously did not perceive. To be an "insight", the idea should help us perceive the world or ourselves in a different light. To provide for personal analysis and introspection. Telling us that our conscience is "the light of Christ" isn't really telling us anything or provide any insight IMO. One might as well say that conscience is magic.
 
Telling us that our conscience is "the light of Christ" isn't really telling us anything or provide any insight IMO. One might as well say that conscience is magic.
Click to expand...

Or simply that our conscience is the source of ethics and morality, and skip all the god stuff.
 
Olowkow said:
Or simply that our conscience is the source of ethics and morality, and skip all the god stuff.
Click to expand...
Where does our morality come from?
Our conscience
Where does our conscience come from?
God
Where does god come from?
???

Or

Where does our morality come from?
Our conscience
Where does our conscience come from?
God
Where does god come from?
God needs no origin. He is the first source.
If god needs no source, why does the conscience?
???
 
Olowkow said:
Or simply that our conscience is the source of ethics and morality, and skip all the god stuff.
Click to expand...

joobz said:
Where does our morality come from?
Our conscience
Where does our conscience come from?
God
Where does god come from?
???

Or

Where does our morality come from?
Our conscience
Where does our conscience come from?
God
Where does god come from?
God needs no origin. He is the first source.
If god needs no source, why does the conscience?
???
Click to expand...
Yes, but more importantly we have a robust scientific model for an evolved conscience. To say "it's the light of Christ" is akin to saying that Helios carries the sun across the sky in his chariot (see mythology, legend, folklore and Just So Stories). Or even worse, "the tides come in and the tides go out".

I think it good to know the history of mythology and legend. The problem is that those who subscribe to such non-answers, aside from simply being uninformed (stealing from Dawkins here) they have an excuse for being satisfied with not understanding the world.
 
Pixel42 said:
. . . it seemed a good idea to check that you at least recognise that the story of Adam and Eve and the Fall not only never happened but is indeed theoretically impossible before launching into a discussion as to whether explanations and justifications of it can be considered spiritual insights.
Click to expand...

You decided to recast the parameters of the issue, thereby avoiding the issue in toto.
 
Pixel42 said:
I asked a question. Because I was curious as to the answer.

Avoiding the issue is your forte.
Click to expand...

Yes. He's still refusing to respond to the query as to the exact role that faith plays in the scientific method. It would be simple enough to admit error, and this would earn him more respect than he realizes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom