When the Mormon concept of eternal progression unto Godhood is exposed (i.e. brought out of relative obscurity to explicit consideration), one common response from Mormons is that it shouldn’t be made such a big deal because common Mormons don’t think about it very often. There are some big problems with this:
1. The issue matters for its own sake. If it is true that we can become Gods, worshiped and prayed to as the Most High Holy of Holies by billions of our own spirit children someday, that in and of itself is a big deal. The issue warrants focus even if it receives none. Let me offer a lame but useful analogy: What if congress had put forth an Affordable Health Care bill that emphasized better cost control measures, better use of technology, efficiency, and regulations on health insurance providers, yet in one footnote in only one of thousands of pages, required that every citizen–while living–donate one of their kidneys? Do you think the excuse, “But that wasn’t the focus of our bill!”, would be a reasonable response to those concerned?
2. It betrays a cringe of conscience, an internal conflict between endorsement and embarrassment. It’s almost like saying, “Look, I believe that this idea is true, beautiful, glorious, and central to the larger plan of salvation and very purpose of life, but I want to assure you that I try NOT to think about it very often.” Consider an analogy on a topic far less important, polygamy: “I believe that polygamy is acceptable, beautiful, righteous, eternal, something that is to be celebrated, something to be anticipated, and something that even the Gods participate in, but *shudder* I can assure you, we do NOT currently practice it!”
3. That it isn’t repudiated speaks to the condition of the heart. I have elsewhere written that in Mormonism there is power seen in ambiguity, strength in ambivalence, solidarity in equivocation, encouragement in non-officiality. But some things are so horrific and evil, that to not willingly and readily repudiate them speaks to a satanic sickness of the heart. We would be rightly aghast if a confessing Christian wasn’t willing to deny the idea that Jesus sinned, or that Jesus did not resurrect from the dead. The same goes for the issues of whether God the Father sinned, or whether sinners can ever be rightly worshiped as Most High Gods. These negative repudiations should be effortless if one positively affirms what every Christian believes: God alone is the true Most High God for all, God the Father never sinned, Jesus never sinned, and Jesus resurrected from the dead. An unwillingness to hate a horrific falsehood can be evidence of a lack of love for a central and beautiful truth.
4. Despite the human tendency to lose sight of the big picture, our view of the big picture still shapes what we believe and do. It is reasonable and right for any religion to consider the small in light of the large, the temporary in light of the eternal. Mormonism gives its people a meta-narrative, a grand, basically coherent, unified worldview with answers to where we came from, who we are, and where we are going. Mormonism frequently encourages to live out the mundane in light of the eternal—in principle, it should. Mormons who are inwardly embarrassed over Mormonism’s big-picture view of where humans are going cannot ultimately take solace in shortsightedness. It isn’t a virtue to mentally disassociate from one’s eternal future. Indeed, I don’t really believe humans are entirely able to.
5. God ultimately matters more than anything. The issue of whether we can become worshiped Gods ultimately relates to our view of who God himself is. Jesus said, “And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” (John 17:3) God gave his witness and bore his personal testimony, “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” (Isaiah 43:10) Do you trust him? Do you love this God? Can you sing with the angels in Revelation 4:8, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!”
Grace and peace in the Most High God,
Aaron
PS. If your spirit-kids try to worship you in the after-life, spank them.
Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. – the apostle Paul (1 Tim. 1:17)
“God ultimately matters more than anything. The issue of whether we can become worshiped Gods ultimately relates to our view of who God himself is. Jesus said, “And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” (John 17:3) God gave his witness and bore his personal testimony, “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” (Isaiah 43:10) Do you trust him? Do you love this God? Can you sing with the angels in Revelation 4:8, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!”
I agree, who is God? A Glorified Being that would “share” His Own Kingdom with all His Children based on Faith and Obedience. The principle word is “share”. Only someone who puts himself/herself before others would accept the assumption that Exaltation is the Keystone of Gods plans.
Moses 1:39 “This is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.”
God is not about God, it is His personal concern for man. What did Christ say about Charity?
In fact, charity is the pure love of Christ. The meaning behind the phrase “love of Christ” can be threefold. First, it represents the reason Jesus underwent so many trials and suffering for us: He loved us and continues to love us with the utmost mercy, hoping that we will accept His sacrifice and follow Him to perfect joy—in this sense, charity could be rephrased as love from Christ. Second, charity can be described in terms of love for Christ—if we truly love Jesus, are we not willing to indeed follow Him and do all that He asks? It is our duty to foster a deep affection for Jesus and let that love guide us in all our decisions and actions. Third, charity is a Christlike love, or a love like that of Christ. If we wish to follow His example in all things, that would definitely include noticing and appreciating how much He loves us and then turning around and loving each other in a similar manner. In the midst of agony, Jesus uttered, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” These few words speak volumes about what it means to love. Christ’s perfect example of forgiveness, and anxiety for the welfare of others over that of Self, is an example we all should aspire to emulate, in every contact we have with each other as brothers and sisters under God.
http://www.mormonolympians.org/charity_mormonism
helenlouissmith,
In many places and in many ways, YHWH (the God of the Bible) says that He is the only God who ever has been or ever will be. Besides Aaron’s quote above, for example, there is:
“… I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me” – Isaiah 46:9
“Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.” – Isaiah 44:6
“Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself” – Isaiah 44:24
“I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me” – Isaiah 45:5
“For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and there is none else.” – Isaiah 45:18
Two questions for you then:
1- If YHWH has personally testified that He is the only God, EVER, do you or do you not trust Him?
2- If you do not trust Him, and you believe you will become a god(dess), how do you feel about being worshiped?
God is not about God. That statement made me think for a moment. Especially putting it in the light of Aaron’s comments.
You may say that God is not about God NOW, but was the Mormon God all about HIMSELF when he was struggling on an obscure planet somewhere, sinning away, and trying to become a god, just like his god did before him? This conception of God takes away from Him. I know that Smith said that it is eternal life to ‘know’ God, but has Mormonism really allowed people to do that? What do Mormons really KNOW about their God? Is he the one described by Mormons pre-Nauvoo, who was a Spirit, and came in the flesh as Jesus, with the Holy ‘Ghost’ being the MIND of the two? Was it the ONE God of the Book of Mormon? Or was it Eloheem Jehovah, that Smith and his early apostles worshiped, until Brigham Young began teaching that it was Adam? Then the Mormons changed things again, and have people worshiping Jesus as Jehovah, and the mysterious Father by calling him the Hebrew word which Smith said was always translated in the plural. So Mormons are actually worshiping a God with the name ‘gods’.
And really, if God is all about families, then how does Mormonism get us close to our ‘heavenly parents’ when we don’t know anything at all about the probably thousands, or even millions of wives that the Mormon God may have? Which one was MY heavenly mother? How do I get a sense of ‘family’ out of that? If one fosters a ‘deep affection’ for the Mormon Jesus, then how does that bring one closer to the Father of Spirits that Mormons have said so little about? If one takes Bruce R. McConkie at his word:
“Few faithful people will stumble or feel disbelief at the doctrine here presented that the Lord’s apostolic witnesses are entitled and expected to see his face, and that each one individually is obligated to “call upon him in faith in mighty prayer until he prevails.” All of the elders in the kingdom are expected to live the law as strictly as do the members of the Council of the Twelve, and if they do so live, the same blessings will come to them that flow to apostles and prophets.” -Bruce McConkie, The Promised Messiah
Or Joseph Smith who said:
“After a person has faith in Christ, repents of his sins, and is baptized for the remission of his sins and receives the Holy Ghost, (by the laying on of hands), which is the first Comforter, then let him continue to humble himself before God, hungering and thirsting after righteousness, and living by every word of God, and the Lord will soon say unto him, `Son, thou shalt be exalted.’ When the Lord has thoroughly proved him, and finds that the man is determined to serve Him at all hazards, then the man will find his calling and his election made sure, then it will be his privilege to receive the other Comforter, which the Lord hath promised the Saints, as is recorded in the testimony of St. John….
“Now what is this other Comforter? It is no more nor less than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; and this is the sum and the substance of the whole matter; that when any man obtains this last Comforter, he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him, or appear unto him from time to time, and even He will manifest the Father unto him, and they will take up their abode with him, and the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him, and the Lord will TEACH HIM FACE TO FACE, and he may HAVE A PERFECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE MYSTERIES OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD; and this is the state and place the ancient Saints arrived at when they had such glorious visions–Isaiah, Ezekiel, John upon the Isle of Patmos, St. Paul in the three heavens, and all the Saints who held communion with the general assembly and Church of the Firstborn.” –Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 150-51
then many Mormons should know all about God. At least the prophets and apostles should, and they should be able to reveal much more than they have. But then, we will probably hear them say, (as Young did with Adam-god) that the people aren’t really ready for it, and it’s a pearl not to be cast before swine, etc. etc. With all that knowledge, many should KNOW where to find proof for the Book of Mormon and easily share it with the world (as Smith did on many occasions like he did with Zelph). It’s not like they can’t just ask, and have it revealed, they have one of the gods teaching them! Instead, we have non-committals from today’s ‘prophets’, and nothing included in the Mormon ‘standard works’ for over a century but a few revelations that tell us very little about the Mormon God. So really, when one reads this:
“Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” (Isaiah 43:10)
I do trust this GOD! This is the God who loved his creation so much that He came Himself to teach us about love. We know He has always BEEN God, and that he will always be there for us. I would much rather put my faith in this God, than place my faith in the many evolutions of the Mormon God/gods.
“Excuse the Mormon expectation of being worshiped?” ????
Aaron, I really wish I had time to jump in on this blog. This above quote would be absolutely ridiculous in the blog itself, never mind the heading.
I think most who follow me closely know that I endorse half of the criticisms Evangelicals throw at Mormons–at least in the base ideology behind the criticism. But when criticisms are twisted in ways like this–that entirely misrepresent Mormon belief past or present–you’ve entirely lost any hope you might have had in partial endorsement from a guy like me.
The only type of person who would endorse this kind of misrepresentation is the one who believes that Mormons are simply the devil’s children in need of a cinder block upside the head to even glimpse at the possibilities of Christian truth. Good luck in your noble effort with your only possible contingent of proselytes: the wayward teenagers and utter malcontents of Mormonism. That’s just the type that Jesus targeted of the Jews, after all, Right? In Evangelical lore, I guess that’s the presumption, anyways.
mutu.
Mutu,
Your as bad as the LDS who dodge questions.
You claim Aaron is getting all his facts wrong, yet you dont tell us/him what the correct fats are. I can sit here all day long and tell you and other LDS your wrong, but If I make no attempt to provide facts, then how can I say your wrong. Then you also fit the typical Mormon stance I speak of, You claim were wrong, provide no facts, tell us you have no time to give them to us, but yet you have over whelming evidence to show us.
Instead of going on and on about how your so busy you cannot provide facts, how about instead just give us the facts.
MM, some Mormons do in fact believe they will become mere lower-g helper-gods. But the mainstream, traditional, classical theology of Mormonism says much more than that, that there is an entire genealogy of “Most High” Gods, a genealogy which we can extend as branches and leaves. As the Gospel Principles manual said from 1978 to 1997, the exalted Gods will have the same relationship with their spirit children as Heavenly Father has with his (and by implication, the same relationship that Heavenly Grandfather has with his spirit children). If this was something Mormons rarely affirmed at the lay level, then I would make note of it. But in my experience talking to Mormons, this idea of someday becoming worshiped by billions of future spirit children is affirmed, justified, and defended. It’s even esteemed as a beautiful part of the Mormon meta-narrative / worldview — that Heavenly Father wants for us everything that he has for himself (including the receiving of worship).
The internet is a funny place. I talk to a bunch of Mormons at Temple Square who mainly say one thing, and then go online to find armchair Mormon apologists insisting that I’m making it up. What many lay Mormons say is beautiful, armchair Mormon apologists say is an evangelical invention.
I think you know better.
Aaron, that God our Heavenly Father’s nature is intimately reflected in both His spiritual and physical creation of our heaven and earth, most particularly in the man and woman, is clearly a “mainstream, traditional, classical theology of Mormonism.” It was intimated in some of Joseph Smith’s public teachings in Nauvoo, and it was more fully and clearly intimated in the temple liturgy that he received as revelation at that time–and which became common knowledge to Mormons in the years that followed his assassination. It is a thorough break from classic Christianity that I, and every faithful Mormon I know, have no problem endorsing from the rooftops. We are not merely a distant analogy of God, and He of us. Our connection with God–and His Son–is much, much more intimate than that. That is clearly the platform from which Mormon Christianity speaks. And clearly the platform through which we read the NT—particularly the Gospel of John.
As for the musings of us humans being creator-beings in the heavens some day, I’m well aware that if you dig through the Journal of Discourses, you can find this as a theme that is touched on here and there. You can also find there at a casual rate the belief that our labors in this world are a minute principle upon which we were learning to participate in God’s eternal work of creation. Just as the Israelites and other cultures in the ancient Near East saw the raising of their temples, and the yearly gathering of the flocks and crops—& their subsequent sacrifice at the temple—as participation in the heavenly cycle of creation and renewal, so too, the Mormons saw their parallel labors in the same light—and many of us Mormons still do, though it’s not spoken of as an explicit theme too often anymore. It seems to get our fellow Christians all in a bunch, and it’s just not a foundational enough teaching to justify more enemies within the Christian community than we already have.
Moving on, in my rather in-depth look at Mormon history and literature, I can recall two men who mused upon some sort of hierarchy of “the Gods”—to a degree of musing at home among the tamer levels you’d find in the Gnostics of our early Christian heritage: Orson Pratt and B.H. Roberts. But their cosmological musings, while of an entirely different nature than the classical Christian cosmologists, wouldn’t trump those of the Trinity put forth by the Cappadocian Fathers, Aquinas, or even Jonathan Edwards. What can you say? Some men simply let their imagination go to places it probably shouldn’t. The Mormon community has had its theological dreamers too. In traditions that have cosmological theophanies at the source of the faith, we shouldn’t be all too surprised. But to call such musings “mainstream, traditional, classical theology of Mormonism,” simply wouldn’t be right.
Your opening statement, Aaron, that “some Mormons do in fact believe they will become mere lower- helper-gods” I find most intriguing. I have to wonder who these “some Mormons” are. Are these the Mormons you corner at Temple Square or the Manti Pageant with some quote from Orson or Brigham about their human destiny as heavenly creators? Is what you’re hearing a bedrock statement of their faith, or an apologetic response trying to cover for a statement that didn’t even amount to the bedrock statement of faith for Brigham or Orson? Mormon Gospel very clearly states that Christ’s blood will make us “one” and equal with him in every sense (if indeed we receive that gift of him at the last day). Furthermore, Mormon Gospel very clearly states that to become “one” with the Son, Jesus, is to become one with the Father. That is, we, according to our faithfulness, will become full partakers of the Father’s glory, inheritance, & being. As you’re well aware, Mormons don’t think this transformation will be instantaneous, so naturally the idea of “lower, helper-gods” becomes a reasonable musing of how this transformation is to occur, but such musings of a Heavenly hierarchy find a proper place with musings of how many solar systems, galaxies, or universes might be our ultimate destiny as inheritors of the Father’s glory (through the Son, I might add). In other words, such musings of the heavenly life have absolutely no place in foundational Mormon theology and faith. And they never have. To call them “mainstream, traditional, classical theology of Mormonism” is a sham of the first rank. Mormons have always been concerned and grounded in their faithfulness to the Lord God of heaven in the earthly now. What does properly distinguish Mormons from traditional Christians–as said earlier–is our belief that the earthly now is an intimate reflection of our Father in heaven and His heavenly realm. To what degree the reflection plays out, however, is again a matter of speculation that shouldn’t interfere with our worship of God.
As for my specific complaint to your extra little authorial indulgence, Aaron: your claim that Mormons have (or have had) “expectation of being worshiped” like Heavenly Father. Now that’s a level of speculation of the Father’s heavenly inheritance that I do NOT on any level recall from the words of any past leader of the Mormon Church as a destiny for faithful humanity. Of course, such a speculation wouldn’t be beyond the logical scope of Mormon cosmological musings, but why would any Mormon, past or present, think of their relationship to the God they worship in such terms? The answer: They wouldn’t. Not Orson, and certainly not Brigham. It’s born firmly in the imagination of a lampooning critic. A lampooning critic that somewhere years ago, I think, forgot where his historical sources ended and where his lampooning began.
Just perhaps, Aaron—perhaps you, Sharon, Bill, & maybe even Sandra—heck, maybe you could even conjure up Jerald or Dr. Walter—perhaps between the full of that brain-trust you could offer the 19th century quote that states Mormon “expectation” in such terms. I’m sure that’d be worthy of a blog all of its own.
I’ll be waiting.
Sincerely, mutu.
P.S. to Rick B,
I think you’ll notice, Sir, that the blog I was responding to made a lot of accusations of Mormon belief without itself establishing it through a single historical source. You don’t expect a critic to be more thorough in his citations than his target, do you? Sure, Aaron could’ve found quotes to substantiate some of his claims. But he didn’t; and neither did I.
MM, I don’t think anyone will lose any sleep over your discontent. As for your comments that Aaron totally ‘misrepresents’ past & present. I disagree. Let’s use an example out of the past, and see where that takes us. It’s 1878. The Mormons are in the middle of a battle with the U.S. over polygamy.
As more and more ‘gentiles’ made their way to Utah, opposition grew. The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was signed into law on July 8, 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln. The act banned polygamy & limited church and non-profit ownership in any territory of the United States to $50,000.
Mormons dig in to fight the good fight. They ignore it, and Brigham Young even calls Lincoln a ‘cursed scoundrel, with Heber C. Kimball making the statement in 1865, late in the Civil War,
“that President Lincoln would be in the presidential chair until he had destroyed the nation. The North will never have power to crush the South. No never. The Lord will give the South power to fight the North until they will destroy each other.” (Woodruff Journals, March 6, 1865) Woodruff himself even said, just a few years earlier that,
“Joseph the Prophet said whoever lived to see 1860 would live to see the commencement of the downfall of the United States. The Union was dissolved in 1860 and civil war commenced which has raged ever since and the land is beginning to be bathed in blood and will continue until the words of the Prophet will be fulfilled.” (WWJ, December 31, 1863).
Happy to simply ‘hold on’ until the predicted destruction of those pesky Gentiles, what Mormons found was that their God simply was not helping them. The U.S. actively began pursuing Mormon Leaders, passing the Poland Act (18 Stat. 253) of 1874, then passing the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882 & John Taylor spent the rest of his presidency on the run from the law. (And that was NOT declared ‘unconstitutional’ as official Mormon video’s declare it was). In the midst of all this, in 1878 at the Tabernacle in SLC, Joseph F. Smith in speaking of polygamy declares:
“If, then, this principle was of such great importance that the Prophet himself was threatened with destruction, and the best men in the Church with being excluded from the favor of the Almighty, if they did not enter into and establish the practice of it upon the earth, it is useless to tell me that there is no blessing attached to obedience to the law, or that a man with only one wife can obtain as great a reward, glory or kingdom as he can with more than one, being equally faithful.” (JOD 20:30-31)
Not finished yet, Smith makes this important point:
“…Every man in this Church, who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned, I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that. But what will become of him that cannot abide it? Says the Lord, “whoso having knowledge have I not commanded to repent, and he that hath not understanding, it remaineth with me to do according as it is written.” In other words he that is without understanding is not under the law and it remains for God to deal with him according to his own wisdom. If a man acknowledges that he is incapable, or disqualified by a lack of knowledge, wisdom or understanding to obey this law, when it remains with God to deal with him according to those principles of justice which are written, or are yet to be revealed it is not likely however, that he will take his seat with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or share in their promised blessings.(ibid, page 31)
Smith here, tells us that even those who are acknowledged as ‘incapable, or ‘disqualified’ by a lack of knowledge are ‘not likely’ to share in the ‘promised blessings’ of those that practice it. And what is to be their fate? Brigham Young tells us that,
“a man who did not have but one wife in the resurrection, that woman will not be his, but taken from him and given to another. But he may be saved in the Kingdom of God, but be single to all eternity.” (WWJ, August 31, 1873).
This is Mormon ‘damnation’, and really, who wants that? Being single, is being a slave for all eternity. Here is what Smith himself says, as canonized by the Church:
“Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.” (D&C 132:16)
Mormons will say, no it’s not like that, that Mormons ‘passed’ the ‘Abrahamic Test’ and that their ‘sacrifice’ was sufficient. But F. Smith says something different, for the current Church disqualified themselves from polygamy, acknowledging that they were ‘incapable’, by the laws of the U.S. Did God give the Israelites the promised land, and then not fight for them? The reasons for the discontinuance of polygamy were all temporal ones, the Mormons could have easily moved in mass to Mexico, or elsewhere, and then practiced it at their leisure, but the loss of their money and property to the U.S., was more than they could bear, and so Woodruff issued the Manifesto, reversing himself from a ‘revelation’ he received less than a year earlier, to NOT discontinue the commandment of polygamy.
As Abraham Canon said concerning that:
“During our meeting a revelation was read which Pres. Woodruff received Sunday evening, Nov. 24th. Propositions had been made for the Church to make some concessions to the Courts in regard to its principles. Both of Pres. Woodruff’s counselors refused to advise him as to the course he should pursue, and he therefore laid the matter before the Lord. The answer came quick and strong. The word of the Lord was for us not to yield one particle of that which He had revealed and established. He had done and would continue to care for His work and those of the Saints who were faithful, and we need have no fear of our enemies when we were in the line of our duty. We are promised redemption and deliverance if we will trust in God and not in the arm of flesh. We were admonished to read and study the Word of God, and to pray often. The whole revelation was filled with words of the greatest encouragement and comfort, and my heart was filled with joy and peace during the entire reading. It sets all doubts at rest concerning the course to pursue.” (Cannon Journals, December 19th 1889).
It makes one wonder, when all is said and done, if those Mormons who have the knowledge of polygamy, and refuse to practice it, will be those slaves in heaven for eternity, lesser ‘gods’ that Aaron speaks of, and this is the reason and the logic of those that belong to the Fundamentalists. But then, why did Woodruff wait until the year 1890 to do this? Social pressure was one reason, but there was also another. He saw that his God was not going to do a thing about the U.S., and that there would be no promised second coming as predicted by Joseph Smith. Mormons were so confident in this that just five years earlier, Moses Thatcher confidently declared:
“It is my belief that every city, county, precinct and territorial office in this Territory will be in the hands of our enemies; that we shall be so burdened with taxes that it will be almost more than human nature can endure. That we shall cry to the Lord by night and by day for deliverance. That when our hearts are sufficiently subdued that our entire trust will be in the Lord, then shall that man like unto Moses be raised up, and shall lead us out of bondage back to Jackson County in the state of Missouri. There will be no hesitation; everything will be decisive and prompt. The mountains shall tremble before him and if there be a tree or anything else in the way of their progress, it shall be plucked up by the power of God. Then is the time the scriptures will be fulfilled that says: `One shall chase a thousand and two shall put ten thousand to flight.'”
“It is my belief that the time of our deliverance will be within five years, the time indicated being February 14th, 1891. (See Mill. Star, Vol. XV, Page 205) And that the man raised up will be no other than the Prophet Joseph Smith in his resurrected body. The power to lead Israel in the latter days as Moses led them anciently having been sealed upon his head by his father, Joseph Smith, the Patriarch of the Church at that time. If Father Smith had the power to bless, and that he had the power is most certain from the fact that he was ordained to this office and calling by his son, the Prophet, before the above blessing was pronounced upon the head of Joseph, no other man can perform this mission but the Prophet Joseph Smith. (See Mill. Star, Vol. XV, page 620) I do not say all the people of the nation will be destroyed within the time mentioned,but I do say, that in consequence of the wickedness and corruption of the officers of the nation, the government will pass into the hands of the Saints, and that within five years. There will not be a city in the Union that will not be in danger of disruption by the Knights of Labor, who are becoming a formidable power in the land. You people in quiet Lewiston need not be surprised if within the next four years the rails are torn up from Ogden to the Missouri River and to San Francisco and into Montana in the North, leaving us as isolated as we were when we first came to this Territory. There is a power to do this and a disposition to–meaning the Knights of Labor.” (A servant of God, holding the power and keys of the Holy Apostleship does not speak in this manner for mere pastime. There is more in these utterances than we are apt to attach to them, unless we are aided by the Spirit of God.) “(Abraham H. Cannon Journals, October 14, 1886).
Four years came and passed. The U.S. increased it’s stranglehold on the Mormons, and Woodruff, seeing no other way out, other than to leave it all behind and start over, conveniently has a ‘revelation’ to get them off the hook.
“Every world has had an Adam, and an Eve: named so, simply because the first man is always called Adam, and the first woman Eve; and the oldest son has always had the privilege of being ordained, appointed, and called to be the heir of the family, if he does not rebell against the father, and he is the saviour of that family. Every world that has been created, has been created upon the same principle. They may vary in their varieties, yet the eternity is one; it is one eternal round. These are things that scarcely belong to the best of this congregation. There are items of docterine, with and principles, in the bosome [bosom] of eternity that the best of the Latter Day Saints are unworthy to receive.”
Moses said Adam was made of the dust of the ground, but he did not say of what ground. I say he was not made of the dust of the ground of this earth, but he was made of the dust of the earth were he lived, where he honered his calling, beleiving in his saviour, or elder brother, and by his faithfulness, was redeemed, and got a glorious ressurection. All creatures that dwell upon this earth are made of the elements that compose it; which are organised to see if they will abide their creation, and be counted worthy to receive a resurrection.
I tell you more, Adam is the father of our spirits. He lived upon an earth; he did abide his creation, and did honor his calling and priesthood, and obeyed his master or Lord, and probably many of his wives did also , and they lived, and died upon an earth, and were resurrected again to immortality and eternal life.
When you get your ressurrection, you are not yet exalted, but, by and by, the Lord Jesus Christ, our Elder Brother, the Saviour of the world, the heir of the family, when he has put down satan, and disstroyed death, then he will say, come let us go home into the presence of the father. What will become of the world then? It will be baptised with fire. I[t] has been baptised with water, and it will then be cleansed by fire, and become like a sea of glass, and be made Celestial; and Jesus Christ our Elder brother will take the whole earth, with all the saints and go with them to the father even to Adam; and you will continue to receive more and more intellegence, glory, exaltation, and power.
“Now if you beleive what you have heard me say you will beleive there is Lords many, and Gods many; and you will beleive that unto us, the inhabitants of this earth there is but one God with whome we have to do; and according to the tenner [sic] of the bible, we beleive there are many very many who have entered into might power, glory, might, and dominion, and are gathering arround them throwns [thrones] and have power to organise elements, and make worlds, and bring into existance intellegent beings in all their variety, who if they are faithful and obedient to their calling will and creation will in their turn be exalted in eternal kingdoms of the Gods. Do you beleive that?” (Brigham Young, October 8, 1854 discourse)
Brigham Young: “There never will be a time to all eternity when all the Gods of Eternity will cease advancing in power, knowledge, experience and glory. For if this were the case Eternity would cease to be and the glory of God would come to an end; but all of celestial beings will continue to advance in knowledge and power worlds without end. Joseph would always be ahead of us. We should never catch up with him in all Eternity, nor he with his leaders. Brother Pratt also thought that Adam was made of the dust of the earth; could not believe that Adam was our God or the Father of Jesus Christ. President Young said that He was, that He came from another world and made this, brought Eve with him, partook of the fruits of the earth, begat children and they were earthly and had mortal bodies. And if we were faithful, we should become Gods as He was. He told Brother Pratt to lay aside his philosophical reasoning and get revelation from God to govern him and enlighten his mind more, and it would be a great blessing to him to lay aside his books and go into the canyons as some of the rest of us were doing and it would be better for him.” (Woodruff Journals, Sept. 17, 1854)
grindeal, it sounds like you need to petition Mormon Coffee for an new blog.
Well done, Sir, on the history lesson. Incidentally, I think many of your historical criticisms are fairly sound. But, like many spiritual critics of Mormonism, you are burdened with the hell-bent need to expose Mormon leaders in their human, un-divine frailties. No, the Civil War didn’t play out like some Mormon leaders projected early on, but it did buy the Mormons valuable time in their survival.
And the Mormon vision of a plural-wife society certainly didn’t play out like Brigham was commanding and projecting. Indeed, the current outlook on plural-wife marriage by the average Mormon is one of contempt and shame. Certainly a sad fate for the word of God.
The believing Mormon was & is left with two options in considering this history, I think:
1. Concede that some of the commands and projections by earlier leaders were not of God, & decide a new vision for how the words of God are to be fulfilled.
2. Concede that the Mormon people were not faithful to the words of God, & were subsequently chastised by their enemies, placing them in a position to repent.
As a believer, I personally think the truth contains some of both options. The way I look at it, the Lord has certainly preserved his Word and people through some very challenging circumstances, but I think there were a lot of lessons we were suppose to learn, that we did not. But I firmly believe the Word of God will be fulfilled and delivered just as it is intended.
If biblical history proves anything, its that the Lord’s people are rarely on page with the Lord’s expectations of them. But the outcome of a people’s history has never been the burden of proof whether or not they received God’s word. Not if the Bible is to be believed, however.
The Book of Mormon is very hard on the Gentile converts that are to be the first to embrace the Gospel in the restoration. And if history is to be an indication, God has been very hard on the Mormon people. But he’s also been very kind, too. And I seem to recall a quote or two by Brigham Young that he feared and predicted that wealth and prosperity would be the biggest spiritual challenges faced by the Mormon people. In my opinion, they have been far more devastating to our commitment and faithfulness to God’s word than the martial onslaught of the 19th century.
Sincerely, mutu.
grindeal,
As for your last two quotes concerning the Adam-God theory taught by Brigham Young–I’m fully on the side of Orson Pratt. As is the LDS Church.
If I’m to side with Brigham on that one, I’d have to get that revelation & wisdom right where Pres. Woodruff suggests I should get it: in the canyon. It is clearly a utter aberration from all the many words of God that were revealed of the Eden allegory/narrative in the Book of Mormon and in the temple liturgy. I love Brigham for his strong-headedness, but I trust in the Word of God that plainly contradicts his alternate exegesis of the Eden narrative.
But I believe Brigham’s Adam-God is far closer to the reality of my Father in heaven than the Platonic ideal put forth in Nicaea, and by theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas. That is, the proponents of the classical Christian tradition view of our Father in heaven. As I said in the response section a few blogs back, the Son of God is the fulfillment of God the Father, to each and every human. He is NOT a human/material expression of an utterly analogous “Father.” Jesus is not a Savior from God’s wrath; but a Savior to God’s holiness. Brigham understood this as fully as Orson, whatever their differences in the specifics of God’s creation of humanity.
Sincerely, mutu.
MM wrote,
“And clearly the platform through which we read the NT—particularly the Gospel of John.”
On the contrary, the Gospel of John teaches that Jesus pre-existed while we didn’t, and it describes us as needing to become children of God by receiving Jesus — no where does it teach that we are of the same species of God the Father. Indeed, instead of Jesus being a man who became God, he is God became man.
“I’m well aware that if you dig through the Journal of Discourses, you can find this as a theme that is touched on here and there”
You don’t need to go back to the JoD for the idea of becoming Gods (with our own spirit children). You can go back to much more recent LDS manuals, such as Gospel Through the Ages, Achieving a Celestial Marriage, and the presently-used Gospel Principles[1]. Or you can come to the streets with me and watch what follows when I ask Mormons if they’d heard the saying, “As man is God once was, as God is man may be.”
As for those who opt instead of for the idea of merely becoming helper-gods (instead of becoming worshiped “Most High” Gods), it is usually because they are converts who have never heard of Lorenzo Snow couplet theology, or they are well-read BYU students who take a more canon-centered approach to Mormonism and a cynical approach to things like the KFD.
In any case, I don’t appreciate the hedging and–sorry–babbling. I have Mormon friends who are far more blunt, and it is comments like yours that increase my appreciation for them. I don’t feel like playing the coy-Mormon-theology game right now. This issue of being worshiped someday is like the issue of whether God the Father was once perhaps a horrific sinner in need of receiving an atonement from another savior: it doesn’t matter if you think this is mere “speculation”. If you’re not willing to repudiate it, then you’re still an idolator in need of repentance. A worshiper of God in Spirit and in truth simply does not allow for the distant possibility of God the Father having once been a sinner, or for receiving worship from future spirit-children. Rather, the heart of the true worshiper says, “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.” (Romans 11:36)
Some questions for all to ponder:
– If you had spirit-children and they began to worship you, would you receive their worship, or redirect it to your Heavenly Father?
– If your future spirit children believed you were the Most High God / the God of all other gods, would you correct them?
– If you become a God, will your spirit children be able to say of you that you never sinned?
– If you had future spirit children who believed you have never sinned, would you correct them?
– Would it bother you if you met another Mormon who said they believed that God sinned before becoming a God?
– Two minutes after being exalted unto full Godhood, would it be appropriate for you to say of yourself, “I have been unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity”?
– What do you think is more important, knowing the correct mode of baptism, or knowing whether God the Father was once a sinner?
Take care,
Aaron
[1] “They will have their righteous family members and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family…” (Gospel Principles, 1997, ch. 47)
I don’t know but it appears to me that there is a lot different kinds of Mormonism practiced by the Salt Lake City LDS folks.
One thing I notice is that the Christians who post here quote extensively from Mormon source material. The Mormon posters then contend that what is available in LDS official publications isn’t really doctrine. Also the Mormon posters consistently tell us that what Mormon prophets and apostles wrote, preached, practiced and believed isn’t really what it appears to be and even if it is it doesn’t count because……………..(?)
This is really messed-up.
I’m guessing that Mormons have to come up with a sort of Mormonism that works for them.
This man to god progress is pretty well spelled out in Mormon historical documents. But the average Joe Doakes Mormon doesn’t really like the old time Mormon religion. It’s embarrassing, inane and doesn’t really get a lot of support as being so deeply spiritual that only the truly gifted and talent folks can really understand it.
Of course I trust God and in God also. I would like to be a Goddess, but that is way premature to assume anything at this time.
Of course I believe in one God, the question is what this means.
John 17:22-23:
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
First, there is only one God because the Father is the supreme monarch of our universe. There is no other God to whom we could switch our allegiance, and there never will be such a being. He is “the Eternal God of all other gods” (D&C 121:32). Elder Boyd K. Packer writes:
The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Elohim, the Father. He is God; of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him.[Boyd K. Packer, Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991), 293, emphasis in original.]
Second, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are so unified in mind, will, love, and covenant that they can collectively be called “one God” (see 2 Nephi 31:21; D&C 20:28). A powerful unity of spirit, the universal “light of Christ” that is the power of God pervading the universe (D&C 88:7-13), bonds them. Jesus Christ can even be identified by the title “Father” because “I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one – The Father because he gave me of his fulness, and the Son because I was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men” (D&C 93:3-4). Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained: “Monotheism is the doctrine or belief that there is but one God. If this is properly interpreted to mean that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost – each of whom is a separate and distinct godly personage – are one God, meaning one Godhead, then true saints are monotheists.”[Bruce R. McConkie, “Monotheism,” in Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), p. 511.]
I think you’re right, falcon. All of this back-and-forth makes my head hurt sometimes. I have several mormon friends/relatives who seem to all have their own personal beliefs on the more controversial (aka. odd) proclamations and history of their religion. I have one good friend who refuses to even discuss polygamy, not because she wants to defend it, but because the doctrine (“heavenly concept”) makes her so mad. My husband (who seems to be on the fence about his religion, yet is a tad too prideful to admit it at times) doesn’t think that the D&C is true, but that the BoM is. I don’t understand how you call someone a prophet of God, but you get to pick and choose which parts were inspired and which parts were just him rambling on about his own personal thoughts. Seems kind of confusing and unreliable to me? Maybe I’m just old school and think if you’ve signed onto a belief system, you should believe either all or nothing. Not just the parts you like or understand.
Did I miss something or isn’t the Salt Lake City brand of Mormonism all about men becoming gods? And wasn’t the point of polygamy that a man who was going to become a god would have all of these women to procreate spirit children with? And isn’t it necessary to practice polygamy to get to the highest level of the Mormon Celestial kingdom?
And doesn’t it stand to reason that when these men become gods and their wife or wives become goddesses that the spirit children whom they procreate and then send to their various planets will honor, adore and pray to these men and women who have done their Mormon works to become gods and goddesses?
Now the other brands of Mormonism don’t buy this men to gods scenario some going so far as to say that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet. Those Mormon fundamentalists who practice polygamy say that the Salt Lake City bunch have gone into apostasy.
The Salt Lake City view of the nature of God is truly strange and has no place in Christianity of any era including the first century. The skewed thinking that produced this abomination of a doctrine demonstrates a demonic influence that’s pretty easy to spot. People who involve themselves in occult practices are not led by the Spirit of God. The teaching that come from these folks is a reflection of the spirit that guides them.
Been working hard the last little while with little time for anything else.
Aaron, here are some answers to your questions –
– If you had spirit-children and they began to worship you, would you receive their worship, or redirect it to your Heavenly Father?
Truthfully, I would most likely accept the worship/praise where it fits, although right now I don’t feel like I should as I am not at the point where I understand everything about this concept. But once I have arrived at that point (ie exaltation) I am sure it wont bother me the slightest.
I am praised by my children as their one and only father, while I praise my father as my one and only father. Both of us are fathers and both of us are exclusive beings, but my father is not the father of my children just as I am not the father of my father’s children.
I worship and praise Heavenly Father as my one and only Heavenly Father and God because that is my relationship with Him and what He expects from me.
– If your future spirit children believed you were the Most High God / the God of all other gods, would you correct them?
Again, I am my children’s father, the most high father and father of all other fathers to them, even if my wife remarried the father figure is only a ‘step-father’ not ‘father’. So why correct something that is not incorrect? When I create a world I would be the only God for it with none other higher than me.
Now someone once said that the Bible talks about everything and does not specify this world only – remember, we LDS teach that the Bible only pertains to this creation (ie the whole universe that Heavenly Father has created) and none other outside of it. That is why it does not put in the caveat “of this world only”.
– If you become a God, will your spirit children be able to say of you that you never sinned?
Yes, because Jesus Christ has made them all go away. That is the power and beauty of the Atonement made by Him.
– If you had future spirit children who believed you have never sinned, would you correct them?
Why correct something that is not incorrect. See last answer.
– Would it bother you if you met another Mormon who said they believed that God sinned before becoming a God?
No. It is up to Heavenly Father and Jesus to judge us as They know the truth. If it bothered me then I would be judging them on information we do not have/know at this point in time.
– Two minutes after being exalted unto full Godhood, would it be appropriate for you to say of yourself, “I have been unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity”?
Yes. I started out as a god and ended up a god. This ties into being a child of Heavenly Father and being sent to this earth to be proven worthy to become like Him. As one of our past church leaders have said – we are Gods in embryo. We will never change in that characteristic we have just become fully developed, or in other words PERFECT (Matt 5:48).
I was conceived a human, born a human, grew up a human and still am a human. Nowhere in my life span did I change characteristics even though I went from being unable to walk, talk, procreate or look after myself to now where I can procreate and look after other little ones besides myself.
Or another better example – a grub is a moth. Nothing changes in characteristics. Yes, the morphology varies between stages, but it is one and the same organism with exactly the same genetic make up from the start to the finish.
– What do you think is more important, knowing the correct mode of baptism, or knowing whether God the Father was once a sinner?
Since Heavenly Father has taught us about baptism and not about His pre-exalted life/state, then I believe the answer has been given by Him – correct mode of baptism.
MM,
One must ask the question, just why I focus, (or am “hell bent” as you say) on exposing them “in their human un-divine frailties.” I’m sorry, but I could not help laughing a little when I read that, because by what criteria would you be able to judge someone’s spiritual credentials, but by what they write and speak? When Mormons make statements like,
“I never told you I was perfect, but there are no errors in the revelations I have received.” ( -Teachings, page 368).
Or this one, by Brigham Young (made just before a whole discourse on Adam-god),
“I feel inclined here to make a little scripture. (were I under the necessity of making scripture extensively I should get Bro. Heber C. Kimball to make it, and then I would quote it. I have seen him do this when the [Elders] have been pressed by their opponents, and were a little at a loss; he would make a scripture for them to suite the case, that never was in the bible, though none the less true, and make their opponents swallow it as the words of Paul, Christ, or some of the Prophets. The Elder would then say, “Please turn to that scripture, and read it for yourselves.” No they could not turn to it but they recollected it like the devil for fear of being caught.) I will venture to make a little. scripture.” (October 8, 1854 discourse).
Or perhaps this one,
“You know when you have a vision, you can see as well all over your body as out of your eyes. When Joseph had a revelation, he had the eyes of the Lord. He saw as the Lord sees. How did I know what was going on in Washington? I have known what was going on there all the time, and I know what is going on in other people’s houses. I know it by the spirit of God; it is revealed to me.” (Brigham Young, quoted in the WWJ, January 31, 1861).
One comes away with the conclusion that these men did not doubt themselves, or their divine authority to speak as Apostles and Prophets. It is only later Mormons, forced into a corner by the very statements that these men claim to be by the Holy ‘Ghost’ who seem to have the problems. And for obvious reasons. When one reads accounts like this one, at a meeting of all the Church Authorities at the time – over Orson Pratt’s stubborn refusal to believe that his God was progressing in knowledge and that Adam in fact was the ‘father of men’s spirits’, Wilford Woodruff addresses Pratt with,
“You see that the spirit and doctrine which you possess is entirely in opposition to the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve, and all who are present this evening, and it chills the blood in our veins to hear your words and feel your spirit. Should not this be a guidance to you that you are wrong? What would become of the Quorum of the Twelve if we all felt as you do? We should all go to hell in a pile together. You say you are honest in the course you are pursuing.”
Woodruff then says this, which one must either stand by, or declare Young was just teaching falsehood:
“It was an insult to President Young and the Holy Priesthood which he holds. Every man in this room who has a particle of the spirit of God, knows that President Young is a Prophet of God and that God sustains him and he has the Holy Spirit and his doctrines are true, and that he is qualified to lead the people, and he has explained everything so plainly this evening that a child can understand it, and yet it is no evidence to you. Nothing can make an impression upon you; no argument can reach your understanding.” (WWJ, January 27, 1860).
If one admits that Young was teaching falsehood, then “every single person” as Woodruff relates, could not discern it, and even thought it was the holy spirit! What a dilemma this places Mormons in. Even Moses Thatcher, (who made those outrageous claims about Jackson County) would later say,
“Created by the Almighty, gold, when honestly acquired, becomes a means of ministering to the comfort and convenience of man; but there is that which the Lord bestows upon the honest, obedient and good, of far higher value. The Holy Ghost, the Comforter, hath the power of peace and bestows salvation upon obedient humanity, regardless of their earthly surroundings. Let us, therefore, secure the Holy Ghost, and in the testimony of the Father and of the Son which He alone bestows, we shall have secured the “pearl of great price,” which the world can neither give nor take away. Let us gain the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, and the doctrines of the Priesthood will distil upon our minds as the dews of heaven, and the gates that lead to peace and happiness in time and in eternity will, by the power and authority of his keys, stand wide open for us to pass through to exaltation, dominion and glory” (JOD 26:205)
This was so important to him, that in another sermon he then makes this most important observation, showing the thought process of those men in those times:
“Nothing to my mind can be greater sacrilege in the sight of the Almighty than to undertake to speak in His name without the inspiration of His spirit. We may talk upon the branches of human learning and knowledge, speaking after the manner of men with but little of this feeling of timidity, but not when we undertake to speak of the principles of life and salvation, of the plan of human redemption as it has always existed—as it existed before the foundations of the world were laid, as it will continue to exist until every child of God except the sons of perdition shall be brought back and exalted in a degree of glory far beyond the comprehension of the finite mind. It has sometimes been said that Mormonism, so called, is narrow, proscriptive and selfish; yet those who comprehend it, even in part, have never made such an assertion.
Can a church not even bearing the name of the Redeemer, and having neither Apostles nor Prophets, bear the fruits enjoyed by the disciples of our Lord in the days of and subsequent to His ministry? Do any of them ever claim to have such fruits? Who among them have the endowments of the Comforter, whose mission it was and is to bring the teachings of Jesus to the memory, show things to come and lead into all truth? God neither changes nor is he a respecter of persons; the causes, therefore, which lie ordained to produce certain results in one age will produce them in another.” (JD:26:303-4, 310)
Thatcher’s statement that those churches who don’t bear ‘the name of the Redeemer’ who have ‘neither Apostles or Prophets’ cannot ‘bear the fruits enjoyed by the disciples of the Lord” (Mormons of course), and that that is what the difference between them and Christians are.
To do less than to ‘speak in His name without the inspiration of His spirit’, is as Thatcher teaches, is a great sacrilege. He tells us that Mormons don’t speak “after the manner of men” and here is the crux of it ”but not when we undertake to speak of the principles of life and salvation.” How can one then, discount what they say, when they are well aware of the gravity of their callings and that they understand that what they say matters. In fact, Brigham Young would say,
”We do not wish incorrect and unsound doctrines to be handed down to posterity under the sanction of great names, to be received and valued by future generations as authentic and reliable, … Errors in history and doctrine, if left uncorrected by us who are conversant with the events, and who are in a position to judge of the truth or falsity of the doctrines, would go to our children as though we had sanctioned and endorsed them.” Brigham Young – Millennial Star, vol. 27, p. 659 (1865)
And Joseph Smith as early as 1833, in a letter he claimed to write by direct revelation to N. E. Seaton, claimed:
“The people of the Lord, those who have complied with the requirements of the new covenant, have already commenced gathering together to Zion, which is in the state of Missouri; therefore I declare unto you the warning which the Lord has commanded to declare unto this generation, remembering that the eyes of my Maker are upon me, and that to him I am accountable for every word I say…” (History of the Church, Vol. 1, pp. 315-316)
One may ask oneself, Mutu, am I doing as you say, “exposing them “in their human un-divine frailties.” Or testing their claim to be ‘apostles and prophets’ by what they have taught and by their own criteria? These are only a few of the plethora of statements made by early Mormons, and one does have to admit that modern Mormon authorities have gotten much more careful in their statements. (except maybe Bruce McConkie, or Fielding Smith who once said men would never go to the moon & ‘write that down’).
But were the teachings of early Mormonism bourne out of naivety (un-divineness) or human frailty, or are Mormons today living a different gospel than the one that so many of these pioneers taught and practiced in their times? And if they were, how can Mormons claim their Church is the only true and living church on the face of the earth, when they never seem to know when their prophets are speaking in revelation, or out of, as you say, ‘human un-divine frailty’? In accepting the above as true, and then applying it to these men’s teachings, one can only come to the conclusion that you are correct in one sense, they spoke in un-divine frailty, but they did so all the time.
P.S. And Brigham Young teaching that ‘wealth and prosperity’ would be such a big spiritual challenge was the pot calling the kettle black. His salary from the Church was 10,000 dollars a year. He lived in luxury, while the average Mormon was very poor. Yet that did not stop him from saying:
“…the people must pay their tithing, and he requested the presidents of every Quorum to take the names of every member of their quorum and they should sign a paper and covenant to pay their tithing and they who would not do it should be cut off from the Church.” (WWJ, January 19, 1851).
The topic of men to gods and all its various implications is not one that Mormons want to advertise, especially to those who they are trying to recruit into the cult.
In fact it is not standard operating procedure to tell someone these deep Mormon spiritual truths until some where down the road after the recruit has been fully seduced and indoctrinated.
Now Mormons will say that this “truth” is just too deep for a baby Mormon to absorb. The real message here is that if a recruit is told this Mormon doctrine up front, he/she won’t join. Why? Because it’s repulsive and an abomination and offensive. Now this is the very reason why the TBMs love it. It’s typical of people in cults. The more offensive, repulsive and abominable something is, the more cultist love it.
That would appear to be counter intuitive but it’s that characteristic of the teaching that makes the cultist think that someone has to be hyper-spiritual and deep to understand it.
It’s not that hard to get inside of the mind of the cultist and see what’s clanking around in there. The Bible talks about the doctrines of demons. When someone says they are going to become a god, the spiritual influence that produces such a belief is evident.
This fundamental doctrine of the Mormon religion is one that Mormons have to attempt to dress-up in order to try and make it sound not as repulsive as it is. It is an affront to and a challenge to God who is One.
The mini-god that a Mormon hopes to become isn’t anything like the awesome God that is revealed in the Bible. Let’s face it, Mormons can’t even make up their minds about whether or not this idol of a god they acknowledge has fully grown into a complete “god”. The fact that they don’t know if this Mormon god continues to progress in knowledge and wisdom or is complete at the time of coronation is just one more indication of the foolish and lame approach of Mormons to make it up as they go along.
From Ralph’s common sense approach of explaining; to the complex and delusional rantings of others we find little common ground to discuss a beautiful and loving principle that seems to horrify some and bring peace to others, hence a word to the wise —- perception.
Investigator #1 — Why this is such a wonderful Plan, all that had been taught by you is exactly as I have always imagined it. I have read the BOM, prayed about it and find it to be true.
Investigator #2 — I have listened to the lessons, done some other studying that my friends have given me and have found out that there are some strange and unsettling principles I just can’t agree with. I refuse to read the BOM, for if this is what you believe I will have no part of it.
Heavenly Father — “And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men–among as many as shall believe.”
He asked Job who lived near Abraham’s time on earth, if he ‘Job’ could remember the beginning. He said: “THEN the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” Job 38: 1-7
helenlouissmith
It sounds as if you are saying that you can call all the gods — whether you are talking about just Heavenly Father, just HF and Jesus, all of the gods in existence, or some subset of gods that we are not aware of — just ONE GOD, because they are identical in godly characteristics. Am I getting that right?
Do you believe, as is portrayed in the Temple ceremony, that Jesus’ god/spirit-name is Jehovah, and that Heavenly Father’s god/spirit-name is Elohim?
P.S. the question of YHWH to Job is rhetorical 🙂
Helen,
I love how you told me BY was/is your favorite prophet, yet you cannot know what he really meant. Yet as Grindal pointed out by showing this,
“It was an insult to President Young and the Holy Priesthood which he holds. Every man in this room who has a particle of the spirit of God, knows that President Young is a Prophet of God and that God sustains him and he has the Holy Spirit and his doctrines are true, and that he is qualified to lead the people, and he has explained everything so plainly this evening that a child can understand it, and yet it is no evidence to you. Nothing can make an impression upon you; no argument can reach your understanding.” (WWJ, January 27, 1860).
If one admits that Young was teaching falsehood, then “every single person” as Woodruff relates, could not discern it, and even thought it was the holy spirit! What a dilemma this places Mormons in. Even Moses Thatcher, (who made those outrageous claims about Jackson County) would later say,
People knew what he meant. Yet you maintain your position to follow this false prophet. I also like how you avoided all my questions, said you would answer them when time permits, but them moved on as if nothing was ever said. And LDS wonder why we say what we say and dont trust you guys to be honest. It’s hard when you do these things.
Now you aslo went onto say, First, there is only one God because the Father is the supreme monarch of our universe.
According to Mormonism Their are millions of god, so how can you say their is only one god?
Then God thee father Himself says as has been pointed out, He know of no other gods, but here we have a problem. This means God the father lied if He said He knows of no other gods.
How did He lie you ask? Well first off, LDS teach in 3 separate gods in the goodhood, So God the father cannot say, I know on no other gods, Yet Jesus and the HS are gods. That makes Him A liar.
Then if you read the PoGP, We find in Moses 1:6 God saying But their is no god besides me
But the later we read in the Pearl, Abraham 4 Read the entire Chapter, God is speaking saying US GODS created the heavens and the earth, US, Gods created all these things.
So How can God say, I am the only one, yet then go onto say, US GODS? Then If God the Father has a Father, that Means God the father is lying by not acknowledging His Father.
Then in the Bible God says, Hebrews 6:13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
God said He could swear by none greater, so He sware by Himself. It stands to reason, if God has a father, and his father has a father, then these guys are clearly more powerful than Him, so this also shows God Lied. So we have more problems.
Heavenly Father — “And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men–
“among as many as shall believe.”
This is my point, some will believe and others will hide from the truth.
Helen said some will believe and others will hide from the truth.
People like me who are no afraid to answer questions, and really look at the facts are the ones not afraid to hide from the truth.
“hide from the truth”?
That’s rich. Mormonism finds it necessary to hide its most basic doctrine, men to gods, and Mormon history from those they hope to rope into the sect. It’s amazing when we encounter life long Mormons who don’t even know the basics regarding the history of their church and Joseph Smith; specifically that the guy was a polygamist.
The Bible tells us that the ungodly suppress the truth. Mormons suppress the truth so we must conclude that they are ungodly. They are ungodly because they lie by omission.
Cults and their “prophets” follow a predictable pattern. First they declare the accepted revelation to be in error or false. They claim to have a new revelation given them by God. They also have a new scripture because, of course, the old Scripture has been corrupted. And lastly, they have new doctrines. These “new” doctrines attack the doctrines of the nature of God, specifically Jesus, the atonement, the Virgin Birth and salvation by grace a part from works.
It’s the same routine over and over and its been going on for 2,000 years. These prophets seem to always get into some kinky sexual practice and arrangement and play fast and loose with the cults finances.
This is the history and practice of the Mormon church and its founding prophet and it’s the truth that (the church) doesn’t want widely known, especially to recruits.
I’d say as far as recruitment and retention goes, the Salt Lake City LDS church is dead in the water.
OK, here is fact, not one individual, one group of researchers, or any Christian has ever brought forth just one piece of evidence that the Book of Mormon is not what it proclaims to be.
Its interesting that the Book Of Mormon is bombarded with theories, yet the so called weapon of choice is still shooting blanks, maybe you can give us just one piece of evidence and not be afraid to hide from this truth, lack of a single nail that would seal the coffin and put the Book of Mormon to rest forever.
Helen and Louis.
I have a question for all LDS who are willing to answer it.
Where is the LOVE? What I mean is, Mormonism promotes it’s self as a loving religion and supposdly Christ centered. Yet I really honestly see no love what so ever. LDS tell us we are wrong and have no clue what we are talking about, yet they will not help us to understand. They tell us time and time again, Milk before meat. How many Christians on this blog have heard that a million times.
Most of us believers here on this blog have read the BoM, many have read more LDS books, been to church services and even a few are former LDS. So we know more than we are given credit for. Then all we get is, we are being mean, or we dont understand, or a whole bunch of vague reply’s.
So please convince me, where is the Love? Why would I want to be an LDS member if your not showing love?
Now for the Christians.
LOVE THAT TOLERATES DECEPTION IS NOT LOVE AT ALL!
Please people, Stop avoiding what needs to be said, IMO. Way to many Christians refuse to say things since they feel saying the hard truths are not loving. Dont mis-understand me, I’m not saying be a jerk. But with out naming names, some people clearly avoid questions and even when they are asked by name and asked point blank questions, they refuse to answer them. Please their is nothing wrong with saying, your dodging questions.
If we allow these things to go on, then we are allowing them to continue to live in darkness, if they choose to then thats their choice, but to simply remind them that they are giving an apperance of dodging, I see nothing wrong with pointing it out.
Helen said OK, here is fact, not one individual, one group of researchers, or any Christian has ever brought forth just one piece of evidence that the Book of Mormon is not what it proclaims to be.
Its interesting that the Book Of Mormon is bombarded with theories, yet the so called weapon of choice is still shooting blanks, maybe you can give us just one piece of evidence and not be afraid to hide from this truth, lack of a single nail that would seal the coffin and put the Book of Mormon to rest forever.
My response to you Helen is:
OK, here is fact, not one individual, one group of researchers, or any LDS Member has ever brought forth just one piece of evidence that the Book of Mormon is what it proclaims to be.
Its interesting that the Book Of Mormon’s Golden plates are not around as evidence. Or no single piece of reformed Egyptian language has ever been brought forth, Their are 4,000 changes, some doctrinal that have been avoided, yet the so called weapon of choice is still shooting blanks and dodging these questions, maybe you can give us just one piece of evidence and not be afraid to hide from this truth, lack of a single nail that would seal the coffin and put the Book of Mormon to rest forever.
Rick B
I’ve dealt with people like HLS before here. They refuse to believe the evidence of heresy by the lips of their own prophets. They would rather place their faith in a fictional book and the words of men that ‘add’ to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith has been nailed inside his coffin long ago, and it was shown that he was still in there, when they exhumed him in the 1920’s and all the rank speculation of those that claimed to speak as ‘apostles of Jesus’ was wrong, and continues to be wrong. Mormons couldn’t even figure out who their gods were for almost 100 years, and had to continually change, and evolve their doctrines over time. It wasn’t a restoration, it was a long ‘evolution’. Mormons today, offer no rebuttal to those very words that condemn
those men, instead they cling blindly to the Book of Mormon and the modern reinvention of their gospel.
Ralph, thanks for your honest answers, friend. I think you’re in need of a new heart, but I appreciate you for the candid response.
One note: It sounds like you’ll be acting as though you never sinned before your spirit children. Not that you’ve actually never sinned. Will you be able to tell your spirit children that you actually never sinned, and that you’ve never received the atonement of another savior? Wouldn’t it be a sin to boast in yourself as “Most High” God instead of giving credit to the savior who redeemed you? We were saved not to boast in ourselves, but to boast in Jesus (Ephesians 2:8-10). If you’re not willing to explicitly boast in the Jesus who saved you before your future spirit children, wouldn’t you be violating the gospel?
Take care,
Aaron
Let me quote and then state that I just witnesses the dogging of a question in spades.
Rick, the quote:
But with out naming names, some people clearly avoid questions and even when they are asked by name and asked point blank questions, they refuse to answer them. Please their is nothing wrong with saying, your dodging questions.
Ask a question and receive the above. So can anyone else show by facts or evidence that the Book of Mormon is fiction, which is a common accusation. Interesting that accusation are never followed up with evidence. Now ask me if I can prove the Book of Mormon is true, nope, and that is a honest answer. Let those who read, ponder, and pray find out for themselves and for those who want to assume it is false, then put up the evidence.
Continued,
If there is no evidence (Book of Mormon) then man up and just admit it instead of the usual, “we don’t have to prove anything jive” it gets old. Just admit there is no evidence and anything you bring to the table is circumstantial at best.
Well here’s the problem with your “no evidence against the BoM’ scenario Helen.
I and others over the years on this blog have enumerated the evidence that the BoM is a fraud, a fake, a work of fiction and certainly not a historically accurate tome.
I’m not going down that trail again and for one simple reason, it’s never enough, or it’s the wrong kind, or it’s the wisdom of men and on and on and on.
Let’s go with this: I prayed about it and God revealed to me that the BoM is a fraud, Joseph Smith is a fraud, the current LDS prophet is a fraud, and the LDS church is false. I know this to be true because I get a burning in the bosom about it all being false when I think about the phoniness.
Here’s a good line for you to use Helen: “Mormon scholars have answered that question a long time ago.” Use that because it covers just about every topic and you don’t have to bother to think for yourself or do some serious investigation.
Helen and Louis:
Let’s lay our cards on the table, so to speak, about the Book of Mormon then. I’m willing to talk to you about all it’s problems. But first – your cards – what “evidence” is good enough? For example, if it could be proved that Joseph Smith wrote the book from his imagination, would that be good enough? If it could be proved that he borrowed from the religious thinking of his time, a few books that were in circulation, and the King James Bible, would that be proof enough for you? What, exactly, in your mind, makes evidence EVIDENCE – so that you can and will finally reconsider Joseph’s claims?
Many of us here have spent lots of time talking to LDS about all the various evidence AGAINST the Book of Mormon, only to have them finally say, “Well, I just believe it is true.” If this is you, if you know that no evidence is good enough for you to change your mind, then be honest about that right from the front, I ask you please. Otherwise, if you will look at the evidence with a sober and rational mind, prepared for anything that God is willing to reveal to you, then say so, and I’ll be happy to talk to you about the problems with the BofM.
Well, what do you say?
Most testimonies offered by Christians regarding their faith, point out their personal realization that they were lost in sin and had concluded they needed a Savior. They give thanks to God for what He did for them through Jesus Christ. So the “witness” is related directly to Jesus and the salvation the listener can realize through faith in Him.
Now Mormons, from the time they can speak, are programmed to repeat a canned presentation that focuses on the BoM, Joseph Smith, the LDS church and the current prophet. Jesus typically gets tacked on as sort of an after thought because the other four things are really the foundation of the Mormon religion.
I think in order to be honest, Mormons need to spiff-up their testimony in such a way that they testify to the hope that some day they will become gods, rule their own planetary system, procreate spirit children and be worshiped and adored by their countless minions.
For the Christian, Jesus is the hope that resides within us through the Spirit of God. For the Mormon, their hope is the LDS church system which they suppose will provide the conduit to their personal deification if they do all the prescribed work, behave themselves, floss after every meal and wear their seat belts while in a car.
We have a number of ex-Mormons who blog here and it’s really fascinating how they will report about how at one time they where totally convinced that Mormonism was the real deal but some how the light bulb went on and they realized Mormonism was false.
It’s really very difficult for Mormons to handle the fact that a person who once was a Mormon, rejected Mormonism as being false. There’s all kinds of scary Mormon stories out there about what happens to people who leave the Mormon church. They are said to be homosexuals, viewers of pornography, drunks, drug addicts and profane in countless ways.
It’s a pretty tough thing for the true believing naive Mormon to come to grips with folks rejecting Mormonism for a variety of reasons but in the end it’s because they figured out it isn’t true.
The reason Mormons are so afraid to really analyze and admit when they see something is obviously wrong, unscriptural, contradictory, etc… is because they then face the threat of losing their salvation. Salvation for them is not found in Jesus alone. It is found in being a member of the Church. If they leave the Church, they’re told they will be cast into hell. So in their case? It’s better to try to rationalize, explain away, and justify all of the weird/false doctrines than to be in danger of going to hell.
MaM.
It’s kind of funny that an apostate Mormon is going to get thrown into Mormon hell (outer darkness) when they teach universal salvation. That’s the way cults work. It’s all about fear.
It’s quite entertaining for me reading the posts on this topic because so much more is revealed then just the comments (on the topic). I must admit that I sit in wonder and ask myself, “How can Mormons believe this stuff?”
It’s truly amazing when you know that some at least have knowledge of the history of the LDS church and also about Joseph Smith’s foibles and the constant back filling that the LDS church has had to do to try and prop the religion up and they’re still holding on to the myth with a death grip. I’ve been watching with interest both John Dehlin (Mormon Stories) and Grant Palmer (An Insiders View of Mormon Origins) and wondering how long they could stay in the fold. Dehlin recently announced that he’s stepping away. The load just gets too heavy after a while it seems and a Mormon has to choose between personal integrity and propping up the myth and faking it.
Setfree, would you agree that the Book of Mormon is the Keystone of our Religion, if not then what is?
Next if it’s the keystone, then what Christians need to do is prove its a false keystone and will only crumble when picked at.
You gave three examples of what would I believe if shown these were true. Imagination, borrowed from others and borrowed from the King James. Now there are two I disagree with and only partially agree with the King James. We can throw out the King James when we realized that yes, JS when he saw that the plates were using the word of God spoken by some of the Prophets, actually looked up the verses and copied the King James Language, which to me is a no brainer.
“Imagination” and “borrowed” would undoubtedly make a huge difference to me when any evidence
of fact could be presented. So now lets see what you got?
Dear Helen,
If I understand, you believe that passages from the Bible appear in the Book of Mormon, word-for-word from the KJV. And this is because Joseph Smith, for stylistic reasons, decided to use a widely accepted English edition of the Bible when finding matching passages on the gold plates. (And the people described in the Book of Mormon had possession of plates of brass, which contained various books from the Old Testament. And sometimes cited these in their writings.)
In my mind, this makes some sense. But what if some of these passages from the Bible which appear in the Book of Mormon were from the New Testament? From books which would be written hundreds of years after the Book of Mormon section in which they appear.
Brian,
I don’t think that it could work that way regarding JS deciding to use the KJV of the Bible instead of what he saw when he put his magic rock in his hat and shoved his face in the hat. Wasn’t the story that letters would float around inside the magic rock filled hat, conform to words and sentences, Smith would do the shout out to his buddy on the other side of the blanket and then say something like “finished”?
Look this explanation of him using KJV for style reasons is such a joke but a typical Mormon excuse/explanation. These Mormon folks are feeling it and nothing is going to disrupt their emotional attachment to Mormonism. Any explanation will do, no matter how far fetched or goofy.
It’s only when their spirits and minds are illuminated by the Spirit of the Lord that the delusional spell they are under will be broken and they will see the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In so doing they will have that “bonk” moment and Mormonism will look like the cruel hoax that it is.
Setfree quoted:
Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. – the apostle Paul (1 Tim. 1:17)
“Like.”
You wonder what branch of Mormonism has the “true” Mormon revelation and is therefore the one true Mormon church. A year or so ago I had an e mail back-and-forth communication going on with someone at the Community of Christ Mormon sect HQ. This Mormon group doesn’t believe that men are going to become gods. When I asked what their view on the BoM was, I was told that it was up to the individual member to decide whether it was an actual history or simply a “spiritual” book. I guess that latter position is an escape hatch for those who want to stay in the group but have concluded, based on evidence and not emotion and desire, that the BoM is a fantasy.
I’m guessing that with a couple of mouse clicks, a curious Mormon could get the straight skinny on the BoM. The Mormonism Research Ministry which sponsors this blog has enough information on all topics Mormon to equip someone who is sensing that there’s something not quite right with the religion to get accurate information.
http://mrm.org/book-of-mormon
Here you go Helen.
All the evidence that you could ever want that the BoM is not actual history or true in any way, shape or manner. Just click on the link and have at it.
I like doing it this way because then I don’t have to waste a lot of time putting together a presentation just to have you say, “That’s your opinion.”
If you really want to discuss this, I have the time. But the problem you seem to think is there, is really easily explained. So lets begin by you giving me a few to bat out of the park.
Helen 🙂