Responding to the “that’s not official doctrine” deflection

I spent much of the General Conference weekend downtown doing video interviews for my project. At one point I shot some video of the missionaries trying to neutralize (“hymn-slam”?) one of the jeerers outside the Conference Center.

I added annotations to the video as a way of sharing and advertising. One Mormon responded:

Some of the little “bubbles” displayed randomly during this singing are not true of our beliefs. But, that’s how satan teaches – by giving half-truths.
Hail to the Prophet Joseph Smith!

I asked for specifics, and what follows is the conversation that ensued. She wrote:

Actually, I just watched it again and all of the bubbles contain misinformation. The Book of Mormon outdated? Still contains the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the foundation of the church. We also believe in continued revelation. Ruling over planets? No, we don’t believe that. We believe we can become LIKE God – eternal and perfect. Not “gods” of our own planets. That especially is not doctrine. Maybe people assume that, but it is not doctrine.

God, angels, demons and humans all being the same “species”… well, in a sense, yes I guess, (except God our Father is on a whole different ‘plane’ than we are or will ever be.) God our Father created us ALL, and us “humans” in His image. There are different types of angels – spirits who have not come to earth, those who have come here and have been resurrected, those who have come to earth but not resurrected. Demons, I assume, satan’s followers – will never gain a body and were all created as spirit children of God. Just like the rest of us. They chose to follow Lucifer and were cast out along with him and will never live on this earth.

God being a sinner? I would like to see where you come up with that? We have NEVER taught that as doctrine, EVER. God is perfect, all knowing and all loving. We know the true nature of God – meaning He is a being. Where His beginning began? We don’t know. For us, He has always existed. We do not believe that, that is an absolute flat out lie. See how all these little bubbles contain mixed up truth? And even lies?? Come on. Who do you think the creator of all that IS?

Certainly not the Lord.

Whether the Book of Mormon of 1830 represents contemporary doctrine of Mormonism in 2009 is a matter of opinion. On this issue I recommend this article by a respected Mormon historian.

I live in Utah, and know lots of Mormons. If you would ever like to have lunch with us, I’ll pay for your food. My Mormon friends are very up front about the future exaltation and ruling over planets as gods. Notice on this point how I appeal to “traditional Mormonism”. I chose that language as to not stereotype Mormons.

Your point about God and demons is compatible with my bubble. They are equivalent in species but varied in states and stages of development. My bubble chose careful language on this point.

On the God-as-former-sinner issue, I invite you to see a preview of my video project on that at Regardless of it not being an explicit doctrine specifically promoted from the leadership, it is a mainstream (but not uniform) belief according to my research. I chose my language carefully on this, and said “many Mormons”, not “all Mormons” or “institutional Mormonism explicitly teaches”, etc.

Please tell me what you think of the project. It is entirely made up of video interviews with real Mormons (most of the video work so far was done this past General Conference weekend).

Take care, I look forward to your reply,


I do not wish to go back and forth with you. While your Mormon friends may talk about ‘being gods” and ruling over their own planet, it is still an assumption. There is no doctrine stating that, anywhere.  Again, many things you point out ARE just assumptions. Not doctrine. No matter. I am sure you are very passionate in your beliefs and that is wonderful. I know the gospel is true. This knowledge has come from the Holy Ghost who testifies of truth.  Have a lovely day.

I responded anyway (maybe I shouldn’t have?):

I didn’t say it was formal doctrine. On many of those things I said things like, “Many Mormons believe”. You failed to distinguish between formal doctrine and actual mainstream beliefs, conflating the two, but when I pointed out that many Mormons actually believe thus stuff, you started distinguishing the two. Does that make sense?

Take care and best wishes,


We are free, of course, to form our own opinions… which is where you are getting your “information” it seems – from other Mormon’s opinions… and those are not doctrine. It is just interesting to me that this is how people like you like to discredit or bad-mouth the church… not focusing on the REAL doctrine, but from assumptions and opinions of members. Giving half-truths and misconceptions. I know the difference between what Mormons assume and what is doctrine, but others do not. They will read your misconceptions and take that as our “doctrine”… that is where confusion sets in. Oh well. All I can do is share my testimony of the gospel. Satan will continue to try to confuse and mislead people until Christ returns.

I know the gospel is true and that Joseph Smith was his prophet in this last dispensation, and that he restored the fullness of the gospel to the earth. I know the Book of Mormon is scripture, and that Joseph translated those ancient plates through the power and gift of Almighty God. I know Jesus Christ is my Savior and Redeemer and through Him, all things are possible.

Have a great day.

Thanks for writing back.

If a majority of church members believe something bad, and it happens to be fostered or implied by the rest of the traditional Mormon worldview, the LDS Church leadership still has a responsibility not to acquiesce to it. Otherwise they are complicit to a degree in the continuance of the belief among lay members, all the while having the ability to reverse the popular belief.

Also, what matters to outsiders like me is not merely abstract official doctrine (whichever of the varying standards you use to define that; Mormons themselves simply disagree over what constitutes official doctrine), but also what beliefs are actually held among members. I know it is embarrassing that many Mormon members believe that God the Father could have been a sinner, but the Mormon worldview and historic leadership have something to account for that. They are not off the hook just because they haven’t put it in a recent First Presidency statement, etc.,

Take care,


Well, you are free to form your own opinions, that’s fine of course.

I have never been embarrased by what others assume – even in the LDS church. They are also free to do so. I know the doctrine and THAT, the doctrine, IS what matters. It actually doesn’t matter what other members speculate about… because it is just that, speculation.

No matter. The gospel is true.

Have a great day.

This entry was posted in Authority and Doctrine. Bookmark the permalink.

72 Responses to Responding to the “that’s not official doctrine” deflection

  1. Michael P says:


    I appreciate what you write, but it is wrong. And I understand the rationale Mormons use to establish this approach.

    But your explanation does little to answer my objections. My question that you do not like how it is worded was phrased intentionally.

    Do you not see how and where the concern comes from?

    If only the ‘worthy’ or ‘mature’ are privy to information, do you not see how that fosters an environment of mindless following?

    I hate being so abrasive, but I am not sure how else to get the point accross.

    As to it being a personal choice on how to approach it thing doesn’t really answer the concern, either, because one can remain committed to the cause with the hopes of understanding and seem very worthy.

    In short, it is not about that– God does not with hold understanding, but this is not to say we do not simply mature as we walk with Him.

  2. Lautensack says:

    shematwater wrote on April 16, We boldly proclaim the gospel. However, the mysteries of God are not the gospel.
    Would the revealed mysteries be part of the “whole counsel of God”? If so ought you to proclaim them as something profitable not shrinking back but declaring them, as Paul did? See also Acts 20:18-35


  3. shematwater says:


    I know the wording was intentional, and that is what I didn’t care for. It was not set as an honest question, but as a trap. The same can be said for any school of learning. You might as well accuse schools of this for having prerequisites for taking certain classes.
    Schools want you to have a certain score on the ACT before they will let you enroll. It must be even higher than this minimum, or you will have to take beginning classes before you can enter the higher level classes.
    In like manner, the basic Gospel is like spiritual ACT, and before you can enter into the higher learning you must have enough of an understanding of this (or a certain grade).

    This does not foster mindless following, but cautious progression. We are all encouraged to learn everything we can, but on our own, at a pace that we set so that we are not overwelmed.

    However, I am not so sure that what you think of as mindless following is always a bad thing. If you do not understand it all, but believe in God, why not follow. The members of the church do not understand everything, and will disagree on many things, but as a body we know that basic teachings of the LDS church true, and we are content to say in our hearts “We do not know all things at this time, but if we follow what we do know God will reveal the rest in time.”


    What is profitable to one is not profitable to another. Just at meat is healthy for the grown man, but deadly to an infant. Even Paul speaks of giving milk before meat. Thus, even those things that were revealed in the past can be dangerous to those not strong enough in their own testimony. They were profitable to those that lived at the time they were revealed, but that does not make them so for us.

  4. Michael P says:


    I do not pretend that you will understand my argument. That is what it is. But I will say you are still explaining why you believe what you do, and not addressing the concern.

    The closest you come is to minimize the mindless following thing by saying it is not always a bad thing. No, it is not always a bad thing, like when trying to control people.

    But, alas, I am curious your thoughts on the premise that God does not hide a thing and does not wait until we understand something to reveal another.

    Remember, the writer of Hebrew’s followed his discussion of milk before meat by directly going into matters of maturity, inferring that there is no requirement of milk before meat, only a process of maturity.

  5. shematwater says:

    I answered your argument very directly. I do not follow mindlessly, nor is it encouraged to do so. We are encouraged to be cautious in our progression, but still to be continually progressing.
    When I said it was not always bad to “mindlessly follow” I was not saying that is what we do, but that it is not necessarily bad.
    Do you understand everything that God does? Do you know why everything happens when it does, and to whom it does? If not you are excepting that you do not understand all of it, but you are going to follow anyway because you know God will not stear you wrong.
    This is all we do, and what we encourage. Learn what you can, but just because you do not understand it all right now is no reason to reject it. We know some things, and because we know these things we are willing to Follow without knowing all things. Is this not simple Faith in God?
    This is what I mean by “mindless following being good, the subjecting of yourself to God without fully understanding why. I never said we at any time mindlessly follow the mortal leaders of the church, nor did I say we follow without any understanding. I said we follow God because we know that what we do not understand now he will reveal to us if we follow.

    God hides quite a lot from people, and reserves much knowledge only for a select few. Evidence of this is in the Revelation of God to John, when John saw a book but was commanded not to write what was in it. This is knowledge, this is understanding, but it was reserved for one man, and the rest of us must wait until the end to receive this knowledge. The Gold plates that Joseph Translated had a great portion of them sealed as well, as the world was not ready for that knowledge. God only gives what we can handle.

    As to Hebrews, the entire epistle is laying out the basic doctrine of the Godpel. There are no misteries taught in it. As Paul said, they were in need to be taught the basic Gospel again, and that is what he did.

  6. Michael P says:


    That is a better response. And I hate to respond with a question, but this is what I am going to start with. Do you think the process you describe is simply becoming more mature in your faith? Ie, that we simply see what is already in front of us in a different manner?

    Think about all the ways you end up seeing something different as you grow. In those situations, is anything new revealed? Nope– you just understand it better.

    And the rhetoric I have given is very purposeful, because what you promote is in many ways mindlessly following with the hopes of achieving greater knowledge. Shall I flush this out further?

    Something such as revealed secrets of the temple, which come with being a good believer is very much a status symbol and promotes a desire to be one of the “select few” that you describe. I know you object to that rationale, but it holds.

    No matter how you couch it, it is true. And you do couch it in a way that suggests status. And it is couched in a way that God is not fully willing to reveal himself to all when you differentiate the Gospel with the mysteries of God.

    I do not have time to do a Bible study considering God’s revelation of truth to us, but you should consider that. And a quick not of an anticipated rebuttal– truth by definition must be full and complete, otherise it is not entirely true, ie only a half truth. God does not work in half truths, does he?

  7. shematwater says:


    The process can be done in the way you discribe, but it is not always. There are many ways to learn and progress, and to focus on only one will limit what you do.
    Like in school: Learning literature you only read a work once, after that there is nothing new to be found in the text, except the way you see it, which comes with practice, experience, and maturity. However, when it comes to math this is not how you learn. You learn one process first, such as algebra. Once you know this you can then apply it to the processes of geometry, or calculus, but you must learn new processes for these higher forms of math.
    We learn in different ways depending on what we are learning.

    As to the Temple being a status, I understand this, and I have no problem with it. We should all have the desire to partake in all things ordained by God, and to learn all things that are true and beneficial. The more we learn the higher our status here, and the higher it will be in the eternities (though glory is a better term than status). I hope that the glory I receive in the next life will be as a god on a throne in the Celestial kingdom.

    As to truth: It is only a half truth if the rest of the information given is false. I am alive, that is true. I am human, that is also true. I have told no lies. There is nothing false in these statements. If I said that this fully discibed me than I would have given false information and thus would have told a half truth. If I do not claim this, but simply say that I will not give anymore information at this time, I have told no falsehood. In this instance I would be perfectly honest, thus there would be no half-truth, only truth.
    To tell the truth does not mean to tell all truth, but to not tell any untruth. God does not work in half truths, but he does not give all truth at one time.

  8. Michael P says:


    To start, you say this: “If I said that this fully discibed me than I would have given false information and thus would have told a half truth.” This is exactly where you put God, that he has not fully described himself. God has given us the full truth of who he is.

    As to the mathematic analogy, are you saying God is akin to a mathematical problem to figure out rather than a being who wants to communion with you and have a real and personal relationship with you?

    I will await your answer to that question to say more.

  9. shematwater says:


    God has not given us the full truth of who he is. We know he is God, we know he is our Father, and we know his plan for us. We know a lot about his character. But can you tell me what he is made of? Do you know the exact process by which he created all things? There are many things about God that we do not know, but we do not need to know them. Nowhere does it state that we have been given all knowledge concerning God, so God has not been untruthfull.

    As to the Math, I didn’t think God was all truth. God is part of what is true, but he is not all truth. I learn verious aspects of truth in different ways. I learn about God’s personality and character through communion with him. I learn about his physical nature and exsistance through study and reason (which is then confirmed or denied by him). I learn from God how the eternities work, and how space, matter, and energy work through a study of his word, just as I would learn science or math from the words of professors.

    God himself is not a problem to be figured out, but all that he does, all that exsists, and how it all works, is.

  10. Michael P says:


    Wow. How to respond…

    Let me address your “mystery” questions first then give a broader answer on that, then I will address your truth statements.

    What is God made of? Two thoughts– one is who cares and second is he created the world so why should we focus on it? I mean really– does that matter at all? Nope– not even enough to create a status heirarchy.

    The exact process by which he created? Again, who cares. He created, and he’s God, so what does it matter?

    Now, you say these things do not matter, but obviously they do or you would not seek to obtain that knowledge. Stated another way, you would not make it so that only a few chosen people would get that knowledge. What happens when you create such a system is that the focus turns from God, where our focus should be, to obtaining this knowledge that does not make a difference, even as you admit.

    I will add that there is no way we can understand God because he is something far beyond what we can ever be. I do not mean to sound Gnostic here, but the simple reality is that God states that his ways are different from ours and that we cannot understand everything.

    When we try to know those things, we are distracted from his greatness and from enjoying all he can give.

    “As to the Math, I didn’t think God was all truth. God is part of what is true, but he is not all truth.”

    This, to be blunt, is heresy. God is all truth, and is everything we need. We do not need anything else and we can learn everything from two sources alone: through Prayer and through the Bible.

    Let me pause a moment here– before we get too far, I want to make sure we are discussing the same thing. I am discussing the nature of God, and nothing else. God is all truth. In him, we have everything we need, and in him, we have obtain all knowledge of the world around us. But since he created the world, He is revealed through it. Hence the comment that none are without excuse… To be continued.

  11. Michael P says:

    But, we do not need to go to the world around us to know him completely, as much as humans can. The world around us only exemplifies us how great he is, but that is shown even stronger in the Bible.

    And since God wrote the Bible, and since he created the world, we study Him when we read the Bible and when we study science. When we study these things, we study the truth, since he is the “way, the truth, and the life.”

    Christ is the truth, fully and completely. Nothing else is truth– there is only one.

    Every other truth is a truth in God. They cannot be separate.

  12. shematwater says:

    First of All, you illustrated my point beautifully. There are things we do not know, things that God has not revealed to us, as they are not necessary. By your reasoning from earlier posts this would be God telling half truths, which he doesn’t. My only point in posing these questions was to show that God does not have to tell us all things to be perfectly truthful, and you have said the exact same things.

    Second, I do want to know all these things, but I know I will never know them in this life and am content to learn them in the next. I will not persue this learning as God has warned against it, and for much the same reason you have given. However, I will persue all knowledge that is good for me to have at this time.

    Third, God knows all truth, but he is not all truth. He is the final source for us to learn from, which I have never denied, but that does not make him all truth. He is not the heat of the sun. He is not the rotation of the Earth. He is not all the intracate details and balances required for the Earth to sustain mortal life. He is God. He is a personage of flesh and bone. He knows all these things, and can command them, but that does not make him these things. Just as the sun remains in space, and yet its power and light fills the Earth, and the rest of the Galaxy, so God is in one place, but his power and glory fill all.

  13. shematwater says:

    As to God writing the Bible, I have to disagree with this. While a great portion was inspired by God, not all of it was.

    My proof is in 1 Corinthians 7: 6. In this chapter Paul is speaking on marriage. He gives counsel that has been used to advocate the practice of celibacy. But in verse six he says “But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.”

    Here Paul is telling us that he is speaking his own opinion. It is not a bad opinion, so he got permission to teach it, but it is his opinion, and not of God, so it is not a command.

    We see here at least one instance that is openly declared by the writer to not be from God.

  14. Michael P says:


    You are displying the vast differences between our faiths. I think that God is the rotation of the earth and the balances that sustain life. God is everything good and necessary, he is physical and nont physical. When we study everything in the world we study him.

    And I would bet that you do want to know these things. Why? Because that is the nature of believing in a heirarchical scheme like you do. In other words, if you were told by your leaders that God had selected you to received more knowledge, you would jump for joy because YOU were chosen above others. This would be the same if God directly told you those things.

    But really, the crux of the discussion gets to defining who God is. Is he merely someone who was just a man whom we can emulate and who knows all the secrets of the world, or is he found in everything that we think, touch, or feel?

    It is also important to realize that everything about him is revealed in the Bible. There is no need for him to reveal anything later on. Everything is there. Everything, but he does put everything in the world so that none can be without excuse.

  15. Michael P says:


    Is it not true then that ALL scripture is God breathed, or is the Bible not scripture?

    If it is all scripture, you cannot use your interpretation, but if the Bible is not scripture, both of our faiths fall apart.

  16. shematwater says:

    I do not believe in an intagable entity. Christ had a body, and has that same body. He stated that he did only what he saw his Father do (John 5: 19) and thus we know that the Father was once a man in same sense that Christ was, and he has a physical body.

    As to the knowledge, I have never denied wanting to know these things. However, I understand that they are not necessary and so God has chosen not to reveal them. I will know them in time.
    If I was chosen to know them I could not say that it was because I was greater than others, or that I was chosen above others. It would be a blessing for me, yes, but knowing this would not put me above anyone, and in truth could put me at greater risk of falling lower. There is danger in knowing to much at one time.

    As to scripture, it is God breathed, and the great majority of the Bible is spoken and inspired by God. However, as I have shown, there are a few areas that are not of God. Are these scripture? By this definition no. They are the opinions and writings of men, and so they cannot be scripture. Does that make the entire Bible not scripture? No, for most of it is God breathed.
    This is part of the reason that we believe the Bible, as far as it is translated correctly.
    The songs of solomon are another example of unscriptural parts of the Bible (this is a love letter, not scripture). I cannot cite any other place with any certainty, but I am sure there a few more. I do not claim many, but a few.

    This does have to be my last post on this thread. I am sorry to leave.

  17. Michael P says:


    First, I misread your comment about not wanting to know about those facts. My apologies on that.

    Second, I see you do not want to continue on this thread, and that is fair.

    However, the statements you make deserve comment because they highlight the huge differencesu again bring out some huge differences in our faiths and because they show how your leadership is bent on control.

    I’ll start with the notion that God is a man or physical entity like you and me. This is very far from our view which states that God is much more than you and I, and we cannot ever become like him. We can be like he is in that we are good and just, but we cannot be like him physically. We are of a different nature and cannot be like his nature.

    That you think you can be like him if you follow your church’s teachings is a great carrot on a stick example. Follow us and we’ll make you gods! That will only encourage people to trust completely because that end goal is huge, right.

    If you were to respond, I would ask you to expand on how too much information is dangerous, especially given that they may fall. Perhaps this is why they only give the information to those who have bought the line fully (a point I made way back when).

    Scripture being God breathed… So, you think the “All” in Timothy is wrong, and that the Bible is not entirely scripture. This premise is hugely suspect because it leads to an abuse of the book, an ability to pick and choose what to follow and what not to follow. This is precisely because of the doubt you show on the existance of others… That can change as you need it to change or when you need to make a point.

    If you were to respond, I would ask if you agree that this is a problem, picking and choosing.

    Song of Solomon is scripture, and while the literary form is a love letter, there are great lessons to learn from it.

    And that your church picks and chooses it can pick those that support its decisions and deny others.

  18. setfree says:

    Hi everybody. I just started reading this today, and have been just engrossed by it.
    I am also ex-LDS, and even though it has been 10 years now and I have lost a lot of the thinking pattern that I used to have, I have remembered much of it while reading the above.
    I hope this will help.
    One of the things I am seeing that may need addressing is the original version of some of the words we’re using.
    In my experience, Mormons, since they don’t trust the Bible, never bother with and indeed have never even heard of a concordance (many I have asked think it is the index in their Standard Works).
    Church… having “one true church”, some organization we can join, does not fit the original meaning of the word “church”. The original word is Greek, and means something like “called out”. It’s talking, in my best understanding and ability to effectively communicate it, about the individuals who are called out by the Holy Spirit to believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, the Light, and their Salvation. Christians who have found Jesus (in my experience) can come from anywhere and be immediately friends because of the new appreciation they have found (since salvation) for their own worthlessness, God’s gift of righteousness, and Jesus’ loveliness. I say this because the Bible says that these people gave up everything to “hang out” together and be with God. Wow, I’m no where near as good a writer as some of the others. I’ll try to be more concise on my next word definition.
    To be continued

  19. setfree says:

    Gospel… another word originally Greek, means “Good News”. Is a unending, always changing list of moral requirements and to-do’s good news? The New Testament audience wasn’t even considering that. They were considering freedom from that. The “Good News” for them was that Christ had saved us from the curse that Adam bought for us by choosing to “know good from evil and become as gods” (Lucifer’s temptation) in the Garden of Eden. Christ had taken all of our sins on Himself, so that those of us who believe in Him would not have to take God’s just penalty for our sins. Good news? Great news!

    There are lots of great words that Mormons should take time to learn the meaning of. Elohim would be another great example. And LORD.

    If I can try to put my ex-mormonism to good use, I’d say that the basic problem with our Mormon friends is that they have been taught to lie to themselves. Think of how in Primary we were taught to say “I know this church is true, I know JS was a true prophet” when we had know idea what that even meant. How about when we’re standing around in the temple feeling awkward and not how we thought we should, and we just cover it over by saying “everyone I know is doing it”.
    That is not true Christianity. Christianity is personal. God leads it, you don’t. God provides the experiences and the profound wisdom (the Bible) and His Spirit to help you understand what He is saying in the Bible. He doesn’t need an organization, a religious ritual, a secret handshake. He sees the heart. Is yours true? Perfect? Being honest with you?

    Gotta go for now.

  20. SetFree,

    Thanks for this fascinating insight.

    I’ve never been a Mormon, but I’ve had the privilege of knowing some at a pretty intimate level.

    I refer to your comment “In my experience, Mormons, since they don’t trust the Bible, never bother with and indeed have never even heard of a concordance”. I have always found the Mormons’ attitude to the Bible completely perplexing and baffling. On the one hand you’ve got the Articles of Faith (“We believe the Bible to be the word of God…”), and on the other the Mormon prophets routinely slam the Bible as corrupted and not giving the whole message. The best word I can use to describe this attitude is “schizophrenic”.

    But most perplexing of all was my friends’ apparent complete lack of interest at engaging the Bible at anything more than a superficial level. Though I couldn’t force them into the conversation, I would routinely try to bring up the Bible into our conversation (e.g. I’ve just done an exam on Romans, what do you think of these exam questions?). The response was invariably a kind of “yawn, lets avoid that subject and talk about something interesting, like who’s going on mission where”.

    How does this compare to your experience?

  21. setfree says:

    Hi there, Martin from Brisbane!
    I’m glad you replied to this. I only noticed AFTER I wrote what I did, how old this conversation was. I felt rather silly, and figured I’d just have to wait and see if Jesus had something in mind by letting me do it. 🙂
    I remember not caring at all for the Bible as a Mormon, and I think I know a little of why. We always were only taught “scripture” out of their manuals, which are so, for lack of a better word, dead. They were so boring. Combine that with this issue, which is much more horrible. They only ever took verses out of context, and told us what they meant to give us erroneous preconceptions. I actually was talking with a 2nd counselman a couple of years ago who said I should never read the Bible by myself.
    It is early in the morning, and I’m having a hard time getting my head on, but I think I need to sum up in this way: Mormons don’t like the Bible because it doesn’t make the least bit of sense to them. They don’t know the central message, don’t know the big picture. To them, the Bible is just a huge list of commandments. I’d steer clear too, huh?

  22. setfree says:

    By the way, I had a couple of thoughts on the “sure, I guess god sinned” issue. It must give them hope, huh? I don’t believe many LDS can admit they sin, because that would knock them down the comparison ladder (seems as though you’re always looking around and comparing yourself with fellow Mormons so you know if you are making it to heaven or not). Thus, the idea that god sinned but succeeded anyway gives them hope.
    This speaks hope to me, because it means they must realize deep down that they are sinners and that the plan is not possible?
    Is there something you might say, do you think, to one of these Mormons who think our Awesome Creator God could have sinned, might listen to after an admission like that? Possibly something like “so if Jesus were here right now, and told you that all those who want to be gods will be thrust to hell as Lucifer was…” or “how does it feel to know you’re in for an eternity of working and may at one point have to be crucified….” or “so if it makes you feel more comfortable, does that mean you realize how hard becoming a god might be…” ???
    yikes, having to entertain these kinds of thoughts again is quite depressing. Praise the LORD for being so kind to those of us who never even knew to look for Him

Leave a Reply