Click the Pic Thank you, JoeProBono
Gary Has Not Been Seen Since He Parachuted to Safety!
Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!
Become a Monthly Donor
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each New Monthly Donor
Posted on 11/15/2011 6:08:15 AM PST by Colofornian
If I want to know what Mormonism teaches about human beings becoming Gods and creating worlds, should I ask a Mormon? Last month (October 2011) New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd asked the planet question of two Mormons: Richard Bushman, the Visiting Professor in Mormon Studies at Claremont Graduate University, and Kent P. Jackson, associate dean of religion at Brigham Young University.
Dr. Bushman called the idea of devout Mormons having their own planets in eternity “Mormon lore” that stems from the Mormon belief that humans can become like God. He suggested that if Mormons can become like God, they might then be able to run a bit of God’s universe. Tagging the belief as “lore,” Dr. Bushman relegated the idea to the arena of mere tradition passed from person to person within the Mormon community by word of mouth.
Dr. Jackson went a step further. He said the idea of faithful Mormons being rewarded with their own planets in eternity is a “canard”; that is, “an unfounded rumor or story.” Nothing further needs to be said. End of discussion.
Maureen Dowd asked her question of two prominent Mormons in-the-know about LDS doctrine. She did exactly what most Mormons say non-Mormons need to do if they want to learn the truth about Mormonism. I’m not sure what Maureen Dowd learned the truth about, but it wasn’t the truth about Mormonism.
In a 2007 blog I provided teachings from LDS authorities on this topic (“…prophets, apostles, a Church-produced student manual and a doctrinal exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve of the LDS Church all teaching ‘that those who attain exaltation become gods of their own planets and give birth to spirit children who pass from preexistence through corporeal life to the afterlife’”); I won’t repeat them here. Some Mormons like to apply the that-was-then-this-is-now disclaimer to that list of historic LDS teachings, but what of the current authoritative LDS teachings on the topic?
As is pointed out in an article at mrm.org, while serving as Prophet and President of the LDS Church, Spencer W. Kimball taught,
“Each one of you has it within the realm of his possibility to develop a kingdom over which you will preside as its king and god. You will need to develop yourself and grow in ability and power and worthiness, to govern such a world with all of its people.” (“’…the Matter of Marriage’” [address delivered at University of Utah Institute of Religion, 22 Oct. 1976], 2).
That was then–35 years ago. But this is now: President Kimball’s statement is quoted in three current LDS manuals. The manuals are produced by the Mormon Church for the purpose of teaching children (Chapter 4: Teaching Children: from Four to Eleven Years,” A Parent’s Guide), high schoolers (Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Resource Manual – Introduction), and college students (Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual 430 and 431, 29 [Chapter 10]).
Shortly before his death in 1901, fifth LDS Prophet and President Lorenzo Snow watched kindergarten children forming clay into spheres. President Snow turned to his companion and observed,
“…these children are now at play, making mud worlds, the time will come when some of these boys, through their faithfulness to the gospel, will progress and develop in knowledge, intelligence and power, in future eternities, until they shall be able to go out into space where there is unorganized matter and call together the necessary elements, and through their knowledge of and control over the laws and powers of nature, to organize matter into worlds on which their posterity may dwell, and over which they shall rule as gods.’” (Improvement Era, June 1919, 658–59)
That was then—110 years ago. But this is now: President Snow’s comment is included in a current LDS manual prepared by the Church Educational System to be used in teaching Mormon college students (Presidents of the Church: Student Manual Religion 345, p.90).
In his 1981 book, President Kimball Speaks Out, then-prophet Spencer W. Kimball wrote,
“Peter and John had little secular learning, being termed ignorant. But they knew the vital things of life, that God lives and that the crucified, resurrected Lord is the Son of God. They knew the path to eternal life. This they learned in a few decades of their mortal life. Their righteous lives opened the door to godhood for them and creation of worlds with eternal increase.” (91)
That was then—30 years ago. But this is now: President Kimball’s words are found quoted by Mormon Apostle Tom L. Perry in the August 2011 Ensign magazine (“The Tradition of a Balanced, Righteous Life,” 51). Additionally, though it was 14 years ago, Mr. Perry cited this same quote in his October 1997 General Conference address titled “Receive Truth” (Ensign, November 1997, 60).
So back to my original question: If I want to know what Mormonism teaches about human beings becoming Gods and creating worlds, should I ask a Mormon? Should I ask LDS professors? Or should I consult the teachings of LDS prophets and apostles? Mormon professor Kent Jackson says the doctrine is nothing but a canard — an unfounded rumor — while Mormon prophets and apostles continue to proclaim the doctrine with clarity via official Church venues and publications. Which source is the best and most trustworthy source for learning the truth about Mormonism? And just as importantly, why don’t these sources agree?
Sounds good to me!
Oh, BTW; do you SUPPORT or REPUDIATE the following statements?
This is a Conservative site.
“Go Mitt” not exactly a conservative sentiment.
But given your sign in date, where you decided to jump in and such I have this little inkling in the back of my mind you are very familiar with what FR is all about.
Yes.
Any one promoting ROMNEY on this website won't be around very long.
You'll get some slack for being new; but once you READ what the OWNER of this site says, then you've been warned.
Forgot to ping you to above...
.0
O...
K...
 |
Joseph Smith
|
|
|
Rights and use information.
|
http://lds.org/ensign/2005/07/believe-all-things?lang=eng
I smell retread...
And, apparently, NOT seeing is what is needed for 'translating'...
"Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes than he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters. Then he would tell the writer and he would write it. Then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on. But if it was not Spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous. Thus was the hol [whole] translated."---Joseph Knight's journal.
"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."
(History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols.(Independence, Missouri: Herald House,1951),"Last Testimony of Sister Emma [Smith Bidamon]," 3:356.
"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. . . . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation."
---(David Whitmer,as published in the "Kansas City Journal," June 5, 1881,and reprinted in the RLDS "Journal of History", vol. 8, (1910), pp. 299-300.
In an 1885 interview, Zenas H. Gurley, then the editor of the RLDS Saints Herald, asked Whitmer if Joseph had used his "Peep stone" to do the translation. Whitmer replied:
"... he used a stone called a "Seers stone," the "Interpreters" having been taken away from him because of transgression. The "Interpreters" were taken from Joseph after he allowed Martin Harris to carry away the 116 pages of Ms [manuscript] of the Book of Mormon as a punishment, but he was allowed to go on and translate by use of a "Seers stone" which he had, and which he placed in a hat into which he buried his face, stating to me and others that the original character appeared upon parchment and under it the translation in English."
"Martin Harris related an incident that occurred during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone, Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say 'Written,' and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."
(Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses,"reprinted from Deseret News, 30 Nov. 1881in Millennial Star, 44 (6 Feb. 1882): 86-87.)
In 1879, Michael Morse, Emma Smith's brother-in-law, stated:"When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon [I] had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down."
(W.W. Blair interview with Michael Morse,Saints Herald, vol. 26, no. 12June 15, 1879, pp. 190-91.)
Joseph Smith's brother William also testified to the "face in the hat" version:"The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God"("A New Witness for Christ in America,"Francis W. Kirkham, 2:417.)
"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret was the same manner as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, while the book of plates were at the same time hid in the woods."---Isaac Hale (Emma Smith's father's) affidavit, 1834.
Have you taken out your endowments? If so, denying the ritual contained therein that those sealed, through “obedience”, that they too can someday become gods is obfuscation at best, a lie of ommission at worst.
They will rule over their own planet, and the wife, the “goddess” will have spirit babies that will populate this planet for all eternity. Mormonism believes that there are billions and billions of gods ruling over billions of planets in the universe.
The LDS believe that God was once an imperfect man who attained godhood, was given his own planet to rule over, earth, and now resides near the star KOLOB.
But, as usual, the mormons found themselves in a bit of a pinch with Gospel Doctrine;
Used to read:
“Jesus taught,’In my Father’s house are many mansions’ (John 14:2)…If we prove faithful to the Lord, we will live in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom of heaven. We will become exalted, just like our Heavenly Father”
Now it reads:
“If we prove faithful to the Lord, we will live in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom of heaven. We will become exalted, to live with our Heavenly Father in eternal families.”
Lorenzo Snow said; “as Man is God once was, and as God is man may become.” Hence the implication is that men can become gods and that that God was once a man which isn’t true as we can see that God has always been God and he created everything else in the universe as seen in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
Now that’s “consistency”!
Ah the sage words of a n00b. Hint little retread, this is not the free world, it is Free Republic and is by declaration of its owner, it will not support or tolerate romney. wipe your feet on the carpet at your own risk - but romney supporters are persona non grata. Gotta a bigger beef n00b, take it up with JR.
Here kitty, kitty, kitty.
Cry havoc and release the viking kitties
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2807685/posts?page=24#24
fruit cakes just being wrapped in different color plastic wrap
#1 He can read can't he?
#2 Even the lot of Mormons aren't "experts on Mormon theology."
Why?
(a) Contradictions galore are rife all throughout Mormon "theology"...hundreds of them...their "trump cards" vary as to what will be given greater weight -- for that moment, anyway...until the "living prophet" trumps that...It's "quicksand" theology...shifting as the weight shifts
(b)
* Lds "seminaries" are basically high school studies. (Not even close to anything attempting to be what is otherwise known as seminaries).
* Their bishops are bishops on top of their 40-50 hour-a-week job.
* Their general authorities?
Well, rewind back to Oct. 24, 2010. Just weeks earlier, the Lds faithful had gathered for one of their two key 'y'all" come meetings in Salt Lake City, which are fed via satellite around the world to Mormons who can't make the trek to SLC. You would have thought that if an earth-shaking announcement needed to be made, it would have been made there. It wasn't. Perhaps too much media glare was on the conference. Therefore, more quietly, Lds leadership sent a world-wide circular letter to all church members. Here's two sources for that:
Source 1: Quit pestering us, church leaders tell membership in letter
Source 2 -- from a Mormon columnist, Robert Kirby: Wrestling with doctrine no match for me
From the first source:
On October 24th, the LDS First Presidency (led by Prophet Thomas S. Monson) wrote several letters that were to be read in Mormon Sunday services around the world. According to examiner.com, the first letter was “likely spurred by Boyd K. Packer’s most recent General Conference talk entitled ‘Cleansing the Inner Vessel.’ Church Headquarters has been receiving an increased amount of correspondence from its members about doctrinal issues. Because of this influx of correspondence, the First Presidency reminded and encouraged LDS church members to utilize their local church authorities – bishops, branch presidents, stake presidents, etc — before resorting to contacting Church Headquarters.” In other words, the Mormon laity was told to quit bothering their church leadership on issues related to doctrine. We can only wonder why the church is apparently receiving so many inquiries.
From the second source (Kirby): With only partial tongue in cheek, Kirby said: "According to the First Presidency’s letter, members with real doctrinal concerns were to seek the counsel of our local leaders — stake president, bishop, Scoutmaster, building custodian, etc."
Why? Well, per Kirby: "The letter...told/counseled rank-and-file Mormons to stop pestering church headquarters for clarification of church doctrine. Apparently some members get so stressed about the finer points of doctrine that they’ll fire off a letter asking for the final word. Church HQ can’t handle the demand...
So even their general authorities are self-confessed teflon artists on doctrinal queries and disputes. It just deflects right off!
This all explains...
...* Why one of the most quietly -- internally -- detested Mormon general authorities' writings was Lds "apostle" Bruce McConkie's work. Why? 'cause he had the actual temerity and audacity to write an authoritative-sounding book entitled "Mormon Doctrine." [Grassroots Mormons are still trying to weasel away from his words!]
...* The current "I'm a Mormon" campaign. Realizing that SO much of Mormonism is highly critique-able, the Mormon church seeks to bob and weave and obfuscate so that Mormonism can be as elastic as green jello! Having no real core center other than Joe Smith, Mormon leaders are hoping people will only notice the "mile wide" "diversity" component about Mormonism...and skip by the reality that it's only an inch deep theologically!
Mind if I “borrow” that one?
Which takes more ‘training’?
A missionary or a Bishop?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.