#and exaltation in LDS theology | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

nerdygaymormon · 1 month ago

Text

Some thoughts on queer identities and relationships

I think by refusing to recognize the intense amount of variety & complexity of the real world we live in, the LDS Church makes it hard for itself. Humanity is diverse. The church needs to do some work to make sense of the diversity rather than continue to ignore what that has been learned in the past century.

One way the church tries to avoid this is by saying queer people should not make their sexual orientation or gender identity be a primary identity. Our primary identifier should be as a child of God. It’s strange because to non-queer people, they teach that their orientation & gender identity are central to exaltation. These are “eternal” characteristics.

There are very few people I know, straight or gay, cis or trans, who would say that their sexual orientation or gender identity is not an essential part of who they are and how they experience the world. We have large body of witnesses from queer people testifying that God made them like this.

By telling queer people that these things are “not central to identity,” it feels like they’re rephrasing the past teachings that we are broken and will be fixed, that these attractions & feelings are to be resisted at all cost. When my bishop would try to tell me that being gay is like an addiction, a temptation, I’d respond that being gay is like being straight with the exception of which gender I am attracted to, but otherwise very similar. I don’t like language that makes us sound abnormal or unhealthy when the reality is we’re a natural variant of the human condition.

Our church leaders don’t provide a compelling story or theology for why queer identities and relationships exist yet are wrong. The closest they get to explaining why being queer is wrong is that “in the beginning” God established a relationship between Adam & Eve. They also point to the Family Proclamation which says marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. I wish they could point to a revelation explaining why God supposedly limits marriage to the male + female model, but they can’t.

Sometimes they will say only a marriage between a man and a woman can lead to exaltation in the next life. For the sake of argument, let’s say this is correct, if being single or in a gay marriage will neither lead to exaltation then why is being alone considered superior to two gay people being married to each other? Even if it’s the “wrong” kind of marriage, why would allowing companionship in this life be morally wrong?

While I haven’t heard the leaders publicly make this argument, I know it goes something like this--a man & a woman can have sex & create new spirit bodies, and that’s required for exaltation. This seems very much based on how we create physical humans on earth. The problem with this is here on earth we’ve figured out how to do the procreation thing while avoiding the physical act of sex, such as using IVF, surrogacy, and so on. Scientists have been experimenting with using bone marrow stem cells to create artificial gametes, or eggs and sperm, which would allow two women to conceive a baby together. Are you saying such technology won’t exist in the Celestial Kingdom, that our earth life is more advanced than heaven?

It is an interesting academic exercise to look at theological support for the full inclusion of queer folks, but to me it comes down to fruits. We’re taught we will know that something is good based on the fruits it bears. Alma in The Book of Mormon taught this. Jesus taught this. Many have taught this. It’s an observable, concrete way to judge if something is good or bad.

The fruits of the Church’s homophobic & transphobic policies and teachings are broken families, shame, depression, suicide, and estrangement from God. The fruits of loving and committed same-sex marriages are, in my observation, stability, happiness, and connection. This isn’t complicted. It’s just not.

#queerstake

48 notes · View notes

ainsi-soit-il · 2 months ago

Note

mormons are christians

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you, anon. There are some key theological points historically shared by the rest of orthodox Christianity that the LDS Church does not share with the rest of Christianity.

(What I am about to say here presumes that by "Mormons", you mean "LDS", since that's commonly how the term is used. I am less familiar with trinitarian Mormon groups such as the CoC, so I don't feel comfortable getting into all that here, and I feel like that's another post anyway.)

((I am also aware that my explanation may be misconstrued as me biting your head off. That's not my intention at all, and I apologize profusely if it reads that way. I've just done a lot of digging into LDS theology and history over the years, and I wanted to give a rundown of why I understand this issue in the way that I do.))

(((This is also about to get really long and unwieldy so. Apologies for that too.)))

The LDS Church teaches a fundamentally different view of the nature of God. Little-o orthodox Christianity is trinitarian. Not going to get into any biblical defenses of the Trinity here, because I feel like other people have explored it in much more depth, but suffice it to say this is a very old and long-accepted doctrine. Protestants, Catholics, etc. are all in agreement here.

By contrast, LDS theology uses the language of three separate beings united in one purpose. This is particularly apparent in the Book of Abraham, which refers to "the Gods organiz[ing] and form[ing] the heavens and the earth" (Abraham 4:1, emphasis mine). In addition, LDS theology depicts God the Father as an exalted man (see the King Follett Discourse for more on that) and ascribes a physical body to Him (D&C 130:22), which is unheard of in orthodox Christianity.

Furthermore, LDS theology teaches a fundamentally different relationship between God and His People. In orthodox Christianity, when we speak of God as our Father, there is an understanding that we are not His literal children in a biological sense (John 1:12-13). Instead, God being described as our Father is one of various images that He uses in order to communicate His love for His people. As another example of this kind of language in action He is also described as our Husband (e. g. Isaiah 54:5, Ezekiel 16:32, Hosea). This is because God's love for us is so vast and so deep and so complete that it is impossible to use just one analogy and encapsulate all of it perfectly. (I'd argue it's also because the magnitude of God's love is what makes all these other forms of love possible. We love because He first loved us, after all.)

In LDS theology, however, this Father-Child relationship language is not an analogy. It's literal. We are the biological spirit children of a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother.

The Heavenly Mother is another aspect of this that is very different from Christianity. In LDS Theology, God is held to be actually male, with a male body and a wife. In Christianity, God is neither male nor female. We may use masculine language to refer to God ("Father", "Son", "He", etc.), and Jesus chose to take the form of a human male, but Scripture also uses feminine language to describe God through the language of motherhood, childbirth and breastfeeding (e. g. Deuteronomy 32:18, Isaiah 49:15, Isaiah 66:13, Isaiah 42:14), and various orthodox Christian theologians have leaned into that language (Julian of Norwich, for example).

I say all that not out of sensationalism or because I want to showcase how "weird" I think LDS beliefs are. All religions are weird (and heck, all of human existence is weird, if we're really honest about it). All of that to say, I'm saying this because it's necessary background to the LDS conception of who Jesus is.

In LDS theology, Jesus is the eldest of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother's spirit children (and therefore, our elder spirit brother), who volunteered for the role of Savior in our preexistence. Satan is Jesus' younger spirit brother, who was cast out of Heaven for trying to take away humanity's free will. Jesus was later exalted to the status of godhood after His resurrection.

In the event that someone tries to claim I am making all this stuff up or misrepresenting LDS beliefs, the LDS Church is completely transparent about this aspect of their theology:

"Every person who was ever born on earth is our spirit brother or sister." (Spirit Children of Heavenly Parents)

"In harmony with the plan of happiness, the premortal Jesus Christ, the Firstborn Son of the Father in the spirit, covenanted to be the Savior. Those who followed Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ were permitted to come to the earth to experience mortality and progress toward eternal life. Lucifer, another spirit son of God, rebelled against the plan and 'sought to destroy the agency of man.' He became Satan, and he and his followers were cast out of heaven and denied the privileges of receiving a physical body and experiencing mortality." (Premortality)

"The Savior did not have a fulness at first, but after he received his body and the resurrection all power was given unto him both in heaven and in earth. Although he was a God, even the Son of God, with power and authority to create this earth and other earths, yet there were some things lacking which he did not receive until after his resurrection. In other words he had not received the fulness until he got a resurrected body" (Joseph Fielding Smith)

"And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace; And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness; And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first. And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son. And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father; And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him." (D&C 93:12-17).

Again--and I cannot stress this enough--my problem with this is not that I think it is "weird". I don't think it is exceptionally weird, and again, all religions are weird, including my own. Something being "weird" isn't enough to make it not Christian.

My issue is that this is significantly different than orthodox Christian theology. Orthodox Christian theology holds that Jesus is fully God, and has always been fully God, even as an embryo in Mary's womb. Again, fully willing to say that the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, God's neither-male-nor-femaleness, and Jesus being eternally fully God, even as an unborn baby, is all pretty bizarre.

Now, there are absolutely places where orthodox Christian denominations and theologians have disagreements about Jesus. Some of those questions are really significant ones too, like the whole miaphysitism vs. hypostatic union debate. But whatever disagreements we have, I am of the firm belief that the question of Jesus' divinity--that He was, is, and ever shall be God--is a pretty fundamental tenet of the Christian faith. For all of our squabbling, Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Wesleyans, Russian Orthodox, etc. have all taken that question very, very seriously. Once a religion leaves that behind, I have a hard time accepting that a member of said religion is a Christian.

I'll concede that in anthropological contexts, it's not incorrect to categorize the LDS Church as "Christian" for historical reasons. After all, various aspects of LDS practice and teaching can only be explained through the fact that Mormonism came about as a blending of various 19th century American beliefs with Second Great Awakening-era low-church American Protestantism.

And I also recognize that there are other Christians around here that would take a much broader theological stance over who is or isn't Christian than I do. But personally, looking at LDS theology and comparing it to the rest of orthodox Christianity, I would consider the LDS Church one of several American offshoots of Christianity dating to the 19th century rather than orthodox Christianity-proper.

#i'd actually argue that the whole 'spiritual milk' thing is a reference to the God-as-Birthing-Mother thing seen in the old testament #but i digress #sorry for taking so long to respond anon. finals has been going on so that's been eating up a lot of my time.#tl;dr i understand 'christian' to be in part a statement about who someone believes Jesus to be #and lds theology is in fundamental disagreement with orthodox christianity on that #if you could hie to kolob #christianity tag #anonymous #asks #live from the scriptorium

21 notes · View notes

paula-of-christ · 8 months ago

Note

hi! i remember vaguely you posted something about how mormons believe in spirit babies, could you elaborate what that belief means?

I'm going to use the language that the LDS use for their theology and then do some explaining since they use similar words but don't MEAN the same thing that Christians do when they use them.

When Heavenly Father first created the world/universe we live in (note, this is NOT the beginning of time), him and Heavenly Mother (or 'mothers' if you are faithful to what all the LDS prophets/leaders have said, that's right God is a polygamist) had spirit children, becoming angels. One of those spirit children was Jesus, one was Satan. They both came up with ideas for how salvation should come about (I don't remember the details of the supposed plans, I'd have to look it up) but Heavenly Father went with Jesus' plan. So everyone else had to choose sides. 1/3 chose Jesus' side, 1/3 chose Satan's side, and the last 1/3 didn't choose at all. The 1/3 that chose Satan were sent to earth with the 'Mark of Cain' which in the Doctrine and Covenants is explicitly dark/non-white skin. The other 1/3 were punished for not choosing by being sent down while not being in the LDS, so they had to wait until they died and went to spirit prison* to be preached to by the last 1/3rd that followed Jesus and were born into the Mormon church. It might not be exactly 1/3 on all sides, but I know for sure 1/3 was following Satan, because Joseph Smith took that from Revelation.

So basically, when a couple has sex, they are inviting a spirit that already exists, to come and reside in the body that is made. And if the child dies before the age of 7/8, well that spirit just didn't want to be born yet. And if you CAN'T conceive a child, it's because no spirit thinks you're worthy of it.

"Heavenly Father" is what they call God, and according to the LDS he didn't actually make the universe from nothing, but was created by some god before him, and became an exalted man, and got to create his own universe when he became exalted. Jesus is also an exalted man, and is NOT god. Neither is the Holy Spirit. Heavenly Mother is not usually spoken about beyond very briefly because OBVIOUSLY their god wouldn't be able to create spirit children on his own. She is NOT to be worshipped even though she would also be a god. The modern church only ever talks about one but even as early as Brigham Young (the second leader of the LDS after Joseph Smith died), there was the idea of more than one wife of god, because you cannot become an exalted being without being married to at least 3 women. And if you're a woman who is married to a man and he has less than 3 wives, you will not get to rule with him because he will not become exalted.

To contrast this, classical Christian theology surrounding the creation of new life is that a father and mother are co-creators with God, and that God creates the spirit of the person at the moment of conception, ie at the moment when man and woman biologically create life, then the spirit is there. It was a little shaky at first of when life started, but it was always 'if there is life, there is a soul, but before there is life, the soul is yet to exist'. One of the things the LDS church teaches is that babies remember what the spirit world is like, because the 'veil' between worlds is thinnest at the beginning and end of life. But eventually as they get older, they forget, and that's why we have to go through life the way we do.

It's all very confusing and doesn't make much sense, but I hope I explained it in a way that can be somewhat understandable (or at least.... answered your initial question).

TLDR: God the father created every soul that would ever live when he created the universe and having sex is just 'inviting' that soul to come down to earth. Having sex outside of a mormon marriage or with the intent of raising the child outside the Mormon church is akin to inviting the spirit to be forever damned. And so conception issued boils down to you not being worthy for the spirit to WANT to be your child.

*Yes its called spirit prison, and the only way to be 'saved' from it is if a mormon on earth goes to the temple and gets a proxy baptism using your name after you have died. This is called baptisms for the dead and the Mormon church got in a lot of trouble when they, for a long time, allowed their members to get baptized on behalf of jews killed during the holocaust. Now you can only get baptized by those who are biologically related to you, but there is almost 0 oversight on it, so even though the person doing it is supposed to get permission from the *closest* living relative, often times they don't and just say they do. How does the Mormon Church know who you're related to? Oh, they just own the largest database of ancestry paperwork in the US, possibly the world. To the point that the US government will sometimes borrow their stuff. The Vatican has put a ban (as well as other independent protestant churches) on parishes giving the Mormon Church or member ANY genealogical or baptismal information, since it is only used to do their weird necromantic baptisms, since no baptism is valid except a Mormon one.

#not an exmo #i just spend a ton of time watching mormon videos #exmo #mormon #tagging these things for exmo's that do not want to see this content #mormonism #catholic #catholicism #not queued

23 notes · View notes

gettingsoaked · 5 months ago

Text

Articles of Faith, part 1

The Articles of Faith are a canonized statement of basic LDS theology written by their prophet, Joseph Smith, in a letter to a man named John Wentworth who had requested information about the Latter-day Saints for his newspaper, the Chicago Democrat. In this series, I will discuss each of them in turn.

Article of Faith #1 "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." This, on the surface, is an orthodox-looking statement of trinitarian theology. All Christians believe in one God in three persons - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. However, Mormons do not believe that there is one God in three divine Persons. Mormons believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct personages or beings, united in will and purpose so closely that they might be considered one God, but are still three separate people.

God, the Eternal Father - Mormons believe that God the Father is the literal father of their spirits. Before this period of mortal probation, we all lived up in Heaven with God. Latter-day Saints refer to God, or Heavenly Father, by "the exalted name-title Elohim." "Elohim" literally means "gods," and is one of the Biblical names for deity. Joseph Smith taught that God was once a man and dwelt on an earth, but how and where this happened is unclear. In one of his revelations, Smith taught that God the Father has a body of flesh and bone as tangible as a mortal man's. and in His son, Jesus Christ - Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was the eldest of Elohim's spirit children. They also believe that Elohim physically impregnated the Virgin Mary in the same way that every other mother in impregnated. As such, the Latter-day Saints often refer to Jesus as God's "first begotten in the spirit and only begotten in the flesh." The Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus, in pre-mortality, is the Jehovah or YHWH of the Old Testament. He is the savior of this world, and paid for our sins not only on the cross, but in the garden of Gethsemane, where, according to Mormon scripture, he trembled with pain and bled from every pore. and in the Holy Ghost - the prophet Joseph Smith taught that God the Father and Jesus Christ have bodies of flesh and bone, but the Holy Ghost is a "personage of spirit," and as a personage of spirit is able to dwell within us. The Book of Mormon teaches that "by the Holy Ghost you may know the truth of all things," and Mormons believe that He is prompting and guiding them throughout their lives, mostly through quiet feelings and thoughts. All of these Persons in the Godhead are circumscribed by their physicality and while their influence is felt throughout the entire world, are capable of being in only one place at one time. As always, questions, comments, and critique are welcome!

#getting soaked #mormonism #church of jesus christ of latter-day saints #lds #latter-day saints

3 notes · View notes

examiningmormonism · 5 years ago

Text

Divine Perfection and Presence in Christian Theism and Mormonism

The Mormon doctrine of God claims, sometimes implicitly, sometimes explicitly, that Mormonism holds to a being of far greater reality than the normative view of God. When a Mormon says “God exists” its defenders argue, they don’t invent esoteric meanings for the word “exist” so as to show God as “wholly other.” God exists as you and I exist. The traditional view of God, Mormon apologists have claimed, is so esoteric that it’s not clear that such a being can coherently be spoken of as existing in the first place. Latter-day Saints are very fond of quoting an Egyptian anthropomorphist monk after the teaching (that God the Father has a physical body essentially like our own) was condemned: “they have taken my God away from me, and I have none to rasp, and I know not whom to adore or to address.”

C.S. Lewis in “Miracles” pointed out the pitfalls that our theological language can slip into when we subconsciously associate a set of visual images with a particular concept without recognizing the association or unpacking its implications- which would allow a person to see misconceptions driving questions or criticisms about a particular point of view. In defending what I am calling the normative view of God, I emphasize that this view of God is not the provincial view of Hellenic metaphysics and Abrahamic traditions under Hellenic influence, but constitutes the view of God prevalent among countless and widely varied cultures who preserve their memory of the God of Heaven. This is true for cultures as far flung as ancient India and ancient Africa- see an interesting survey of indigenous African views of God in “African Origins of Monotheism” by Gwinyai Muzorewa.

In launching this discussion, I will quote a small bit of an attempted satire of the normative view of God by a Mormon in a (quite old) email thread. This person, in trying to conceive of God as historically conceived, began with the following:

“Once upon a time there was this ethereal essence that roamed around somewhere in the cosmos...”

A couple problems immediately stick out to the person familiar with normative theism and its associated philosophical traditions.

-The terms are not well defined. What is “ethereal” and “essence” in this context? It appears that the terms are not chosen for their conceptual significations, but because they relate to an image in the author’s mind. It is this image which dominates his understanding of the normative view of God- the words are haphazardly chosen to capture the sense of this vague image. Lack of definition is a consistent recipe for philosophical disaster.

-If this being is “roaming around somewhere in the cosmos”, clearly we are not dealing with the normative view of God. This being exists in relation to a larger preexisting cosmic background. Because this being’s mode of existence is described in terms of that preexisting cosmos, the latter is more ultimate than the former and defines its existence.

—

What is the image driving the critic’s dismissal of the normative doctrine of God? Clearly, it is something like a thin gaseous substance, spread over a wide area of physical space. This is what most Mormons understand the doctrine of divine incorporeality to entail. And it must be admitted that many Christians have been theologically sloppy in talking about incorporeality as if the “incorporeal” is a distinctive property had by certain substances, one of which is God.

—

In fact, it is exactly the opposite. Words like “ethereal” convey a sense of a being who is thin, hard to see or get a sense of, spread throughout a wide space but only very subtly present in any particular point in space. In reality, the normative view of God is that God in His divine perfection is far *more* “thick” and “concrete” than anything which we experience. Next to the infinite God, the embodied life in which we exist is barely present. C.S. Lewis describes the heavenly places as a world of intense thickness and weight. A human creature in an earthly body could not so much as move a blade of grass in that world. God is, in Lewis’ words, “so truly body that He is no body at all.” When we think of something ethereal and gaseous, we are thinkin of a failure of presence. By contrast, the Christian rejection of anthropomorphism is rooted in its declaration of the totality of divine presence in and through all things.

Consider how Joseph Smith framed the notion of divine embodiment. For Smith, the Father and the Son each have a glorious, resurrected body. (contra consistent LDS misconceptions, Christians believe that Jesus has and will have forever a glorious body- before trying to use this teaching in an attempt to disprove classical theism, Mormons need to study the precise theology of the Incarnation articulated by the Fathers and Councils. Otherwise, they will have arguments which sound decisive to each other but deeply shallow to a person committed to the traditional doctrine.) Why does the Holy Spirit not have a glorious body? Smith’s answer is striking- so that the Spirit can dwell in us. This underscores a very serious problem, to my mind, in Mormon theology. Attempts to raise arguments against the Mormon doctrine of God by vaguely waving at texts identifying God as spirit are doomed to fail because the terms are not well defined. It is clear that, even prior to the Incarnation, God reveals Himself to the children of Israel in the form of a glorious man.

But the key texts- the ones which decide the issue- are texts like Jeremiah 23:24- “Do I not fill the Heavens and the Earth?” Or Psalm 139:7-10: “Where shall I go from your Spirit, and where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to Heaven, you are there. If I made my bed in the grave, behold, you are there. If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there your hand shall lead me and your right hand shall hold me.” Or 1 Kings 8, where Solomon proclaims that “Heaven [the starry skies] and the Highest Heaven [the throne-room of God] cannot contain” the Lord. For Latter-day Saints, embodiment is an essential step on the path to exaltation unto divine glory. Even for those Mormons who take the non-traditional (and I applaud this, which I believe comes from a grace-inspired pious instinct) view that God is God from everlasting to everlasting, the Father’s glorified body is understood to be one of his divine perfections. But it is precisely this embodiment which constitutes a *limitation* for God. For Smith’s view of God, glorious embodiment restrains the modes according to which God can be present to all things and through all space. As such, at least during the time of the human family’s mortal probation, there must be a kind of “compromise” in the Godhead where the Holy Ghost refrains from taking a glorious body in order that he might dwell in the saints.

The classical view of God is that His all-suffusing presence is a divine perfection intrinsic to what it means for Him to be God. To say that He lacks “parts” is simply to say that all things true of Him come as a package. If God were made up of parts, then these parts would be prior to the whole- God would exist as a being within a larger cosmic order. This is, after all, the traditional Mormon view of God. And His lacking passion means that He is “impassive”, not that He is cold. He is active in all things, and no creature can impose its will on the Creator. The creature endowed with freedom who uses that freedom in rebellion finds, immediately and unavoidably, that his rebellion is assimilated and integrated into divine providence and will which is acting at all times through all things for the realization of God’s purpose to sum up all things in Jesus Christ the Incarnate Son. No act of God is “reactionary.” He is infinitely and gloriously serene, unfolding His wise purpose without stress or question of defeat. If you needed immediate heart surgery, you wouldn’t want a doctor who was so “moved” by your plight that he was too broken to operate. You would want a doctor who is genuinely and utterly committed to your healing but is in perfect control throughout the whole surgery. His fingers do not shake or slip. His mind never wavers. His next step is always clear in his mind. This clarity and purposefullness is the means by which his fingers nimbly stitch up a heart which would have stopped beating without his skill and calm.

Rather than being an “ethereal” gaseous presence distributed thinly throughout space, God is so intensely thick and concrete that everything else- from the most solid diamond to the thinnest layer of hydrogen gas- exists by His free constitution of the creation out of the superabundance of His own glory.

Biblically speaking, this perfection is signified in the symbolism of the “Rock.” God is described as the Rock of Ages. The word “glory” is very closely related to the word “heavy.” And this association exists in English parlance, too. A person of great authority and influence, who immediately communicates a sense of presence and sovereignty is said to be “weighty.” God in His glory is infinitely heavy. He is infinitely heavy because there is an infinite “amount” of God to put on the scale. He’s the Rock which is never moved but always moves. He’s the Rock which gives birth to a creation taken up into His glory- a creation described as a stone Temple with a “cornerstone.” We become glorified in Him- we are little stones and bricks in the temple of Christ according to 1 Peter and Ephesians.

3 notes · View notes

terrestrialmormon · 7 years ago

Text

Part of the reason I don’t post much on here any more is because I don’t think I consider myself Mormon any more. At least I don’t think I am part of the religion that is Mormonism. I do not currently think of myself as a member of the LDS church.

At some point, when I’m less busy, I want to come up with a new name for this blog, and talk about things that are more broadly spiritual. I’d probably still talk Mormon stuff sometimes since that is still my most natural language to exist in. But I want to be able to move on and talk about spirituality without framing it in the context of a Mormon theology. That will be difficult, since my current beliefs still reflect a lot of Mormon ideas. I think my first step right now is becoming more comfortable in the idea of no embodied Father god. I’ve believed since I was a teenager that God, in the biggest sense, is the Universe. I can exist comfortably in still believing that without believing that there is a God the Father that is an exalted human being. I also feel like I can still believe that human beings are god-creatures without believing that the highest God is one of them.

#I am still in the records but I am not active or planning to become active

3 notes · View notes

sharionpage · 6 years ago

Text

We Like Our Heaven Better

I have a family. We are a family. I bore these children, made from my own flesh and blood. I labor for them. I love them. I nursed them. I nourish them.

But, when I listened to President’s Nelson’s talk on the Sunday Morning Session of General Conference, I heard how my labor, nursing, and nourishing would be all in vain if we did not all make and keep the prescribed covenants that his heaven requires. In short, we would not be together in his heaven because as he himself stated that,

“Salvation is an individual matter, but exaltation is a family matter.”

Families Can’t Be Together Forever?

The faint tune, “Families Can Be Together Forever,” started to replay in my mind; the familiar hymn sung by children and adults alike frequently in our church echoes the Prophet’s words. Suddenly, I came to the realization that just as our church teaches that families can be together forever, it is also the only church that teaches that families *can’t* be together forever. This is a sad heaven.

Author Deborah, from Sisters Quorum, put this concept especially eloquently, when she stated,

“The term “sad heaven” may not be an official term used in formal LDS theology, but it’s one that members are increasingly using. One unique aspect of LDS faith is the concept of a tiered heaven, with the Celestial Kingdom considered the highest degree of glory and the place complete joy can be experienced. It all gets sticky—and feels less heavenly—when a family member opts to leave what President Russell M. Nelson calls the covenant path.”

Christ Taught Of Love First And Foremost

Nelson went on to say,

“(Many) erroneously believe that the resurrection of Jesus Christ provides a promise that all people will be with their loved ones after death….The Savior himself has made it abundantly clear that…much more is required if we want to have the high privilege of exaltation (to live as families in the afterlife.”

President Nelson, I don’t know about that. But what I do know is that Christ did say,

“This is my commandment, That ye love one another as I have loved you.”

(John 15:12)

I do know that Jesus taught of a heaven that leaves no one behind.

I do know that Jesus ministered to those who were un-ministerable.

I do know that Jesus embraced unconditional love.

Spiritual Coercion Is Not Of Christ

I also know that it is abusive to say and believe that your family will not be together when you die because of differences in beliefs, inability to conform, or unwillingness to make covenants. Life is not black and white. It is harmful to perpetuate this belief as universal truth.

As a single mother who has had no choice but to step away from the church for my own safety, my children (who still sometimes attend) are damaged when they hear this rhetoric, as it causes psychological trauma and is spiritually coercive and emotionally threatening. No mother should ever have to hear her child ask, “Why can’t we be in the same heaven, mommy?” It is not ok. And it is certainly not healthy. As a community health nurse, this is deeply concerning–ethically speaking, as it is indicative of an unhealthy institutional system. The church should not be in the business of spiritual alienation. But, as it appears, it most definitely is.

Heaven Will Be A Place Of Love Not Longing

I fully embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ, which is why I teach my children that nothing will separate us. Ever. Because this *is* what Christ taught. Heaven will be a place of love, not a place of longing. It will be a place of healing, not a place of hurting. It will be a place of well-being, not a place of wounding. It will be a place of peace, not a place of pain. It will be a place of tranquility, not a place of trauma. It will be a place of togetherness, not a place of terror. It will be a place of safety, not a place of separation. It will be a place of elation, not a place of encumbrance. It will be a place of goodness, not a place of grief.

A place where I can remember how I labored for my children. How I nursed each one. A place where I can continue to nourish them because they will be right there with me as a reminder of this love. A place where they can know that I am there always, because this is what children should know about the unmatched love their own parent has for them.

Yes, we will be together in my heaven. All of us. No matter what. Because, a sad heaven is not a place I want to go; our happy heaven is.

And we like our heaven better.

We Like Our Heaven Better published first on https://bitspiritspace.tumblr.com/

0 notes

republicstandard · 6 years ago

Text

What Archbishop Sentamu calls a “Childish Dream” is in Reality a Biblical Vision

“Why can’t the English teach their children how to speak?” sings Professor Henry Higgins in My Fair Lady. “Why can’t Anglicans teach their bishops how to speak or read or write?” is a dirge of desperation you’re tempted to sing each time you read an episcopal edict in the press—irrelevant or entertaining at best, idiotic or irritating to the point of triggering head-banging at worst.

To frame our jeremiad more theologically: “Why can’t Anglicans teach their bishops how to read the Bible?” Clinical psychologist Prof Jordan Peterson is neither a churchgoer nor a confessing Christian. Yet Peterson expounds the Bible with eloquence and rigor, demonstrating the depth of its ancient wisdom and the breadth of its relevance for today’s culture, politics, morality, and life.

Millions of non-Christians, many of them young Western men, are hungrily devouring Peterson’s YouTube lectures on the Bible. There is indeed a famine, not of bread or water, but of hearing the words of the Lord, as the prophet Amos declared. But try getting 50 young white men to listen to the diocesan bishop teach Genesis or even the sexy Song of Songs, and if it’s successful, I’ll change my surname to Sentamu.

“There’s little space or time for theology, and especially not academic theology … certainly not on the bench of bishops, and increasingly not amongst the deans,” said Andrew Nunn, Dean of Southwark, last week in his eulogy for scholar-priest David Edwards.

You don’t see much of the Word translated into words when our prelates deliver their pronouncements. This has been starkly evident in the case of Brexit. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, Bishop Nick Baines of Leeds and almost every bishop in the House of Bishops (except Mark Rylands) voted to remain in the European Union (EU). Not a single bishop made a biblical case defending the globalist vision of the EU or critiquing the nationalist model of Brexit.

John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, has yet again splattered his ink on Brexit in the Yorkshire Post. He pleads for democracy, compromise, and neighborliness, but pitifully culminates a page of pious platitudes with a note of surly contempt for the majority of Anglicans and 17.4 million people who voted Leave.

“The idea of a ‘pure’ or ‘maximal’ Brexit, which would somehow make a clean sweep and give us a completely blank page to write on, was a childish dream, and no serious politician should have entertained it,” Sentamu patronizingly pontificates.

“But quite why he should feel the need to insult the intelligence and maturity of those who have qualms about the constitutional position, or who might prefer a ‘hard’ or ‘real’ or ‘pure’ Brexit for other reasons, is a mystery,” asks veteran commentator Adrian Hilton on his Archbishop Cranmer blog. “And for those who don’t attend church, Dr. Sentamu is informing potentially 17.4 million people that their desire for the United Kingdom to become a sovereign, democratic, self-governing nation is ‘childish’,” adds Hilton.

Sentamu entreats that our “first concern must be maintaining respect for democratic law-making institutions, which are under heavier pressure today than for more than a century”. Pray, can he not see how transferring legislative and judicial powers to the EU has sabotaged democracy and reduced Britain to a colonial vassal state?

The Archbishop predicts that a “permanent loss of confidence in governmental institutions always results in civil unrest and violence”. But it is not a second referendum, but the mission creep of a supra-governmental institution with imperialist ambitions that stealthily at first, but now with increasing impunity, tramples on national freedoms, that will result in violent resistance.

What on earth gave Sentamu the idea that Brexiteers voted for a “compromise”? We voted for Britain to take back her sovereignty. Of course, we never had any “childish dream” that we would have a “completely blank page to write on” because we knew we could simply draw on centuries of common law and democratic traditions and our relationships with 53 countries of Britain’s Commonwealth and our special relationship with the US. England is the mother of parliaments, doesn’t Sentamu know this?

But back to the Bible. Sentamu and Welby both claim to be evangelical Christians who believe in the divine inspiration and authority of the Bible, as well as its relevance to the modern world. The Bible chronicles a conflict between “two antithetical visions of world order: an order of free and independent nations, each pursuing the political good in accordance with its own traditions and understanding; and an order of peoples united under a single regime of law, promulgated and maintained by a single supranational authority,” notes Yoram Hazony in The Virtue of Nationalism.

Hazony, who combines a rare skill as a biblical scholar and political theorist, shows how the imperial powers of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome, continually attempted to establish empires that would impose a universal political order “to create a unified international realm in which men could live together in peace and prosperity”. Imperial intentions were noble, not nefarious!

But the Bible, he points out, is concerned with the independence of nations, despite the obvious economic advantages of an Egyptian or Babylonian peace that would unify humanity. The biblical prophets aspire to the vision of a free and independent Israel living in harmony and justice with other free nations and not to a global empire—which as I wrote in a previous column is the hubristic vision of the Tower of Babel—mocked and toppled by God.

Nationalism is not a bad word. It is a biblical word. Nationalism is a blessing and globalism is a curse, in biblical theology. Globalism is imperialism redivivus, re-heated in a microwave made in Strasbourg.

So why do Sentamu, Welby and the House of Bishops prefer “Babel” to “Israel”? Is it because they are marinated in the globalist ideology so chic among our elite? Is it because they are so isolated from ordinary Britons in small towns who love our green and pleasant land and its traditions more than they love the postmodern glass and steel Towers of Babel in Brussels? Or, is it, because they no longer view the Bible as “a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path?”

Sentamu tells us that he went through Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit deal document “with a fine-tooth comb”. Perhaps, his proclamations would have some prophetic power if he spent more time going through the Holy Scriptures with a fine-tooth comb. He might also join those who are demanding to see the full Brexit legal advice and go through the small print with a fine-tooth comb.

I never expected Mervyn King, former governor of the Bank of England, to attack Theresa May’s deal with a flame-thrower. What Sentamu hails as the beatitude of “compromise”, King excoriates as “incompetence of a high order”.

What Sentamu sees as the “art of the possible”, King lambasts as beggaring “belief that a government could be hell-bent on a deal that hands over £39 billion, while giving the EU both the right to impose laws on the U.K. indefinitely and a veto on ending this state of fiefdom”.

While Sentamu says a second referendum will unleash the four horsemen of the apocalypse, King notes with prophetic perception: “Vassal states do not go gently into that good night. They rage”—violently as we are seeing in France where Emmanuel Macron has exalted the “green” good of the globe above the good of his people.

Professor Higgins from Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion loved the English tongue. Our archbishops and bishops love the Newspeak of Babel. Perhaps Higgins would adapt his diatribe to the episcopal “prisoners of the gutter, condemned by every syllable they utter” and call for them to “taken out and hung, for the cold-blooded murder of the English tongue”. Garn!

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine https://ift.tt/2FZ0tRb via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine

0 notes

automatismoateo · 7 years ago

Text

Dealing with being a closet atheist - thinking about calling The Atheist Experience tomorrow to share my story via /r/atheism

Submitted April 15, 2018 at 03:18AM by minusman652 (Via reddit https://ift.tt/2HCYJKw) Dealing with being a closet atheist - thinking about calling The Atheist Experience tomorrow to share my story

I am trying to decide whether or not to call into the show and discuss my situation but am reluctant because of fear of being exposed.

I am a closet atheist and in a relationship with a spouse who is very theistic. We met at church. were married in a religious ceremony, and there was a religious/theistic expectation to our relationship from the start (we are LDS, mormon and raise our 3 kids this way). However, I started questioning my belief in god years before we even met, and I struggled with my faith for a long time. But I tried to just stay with it with hopes that I would somehow gain a testimony, but I didn't.

I kept my worries and questions a secret and finally came to the realization that I was an atheist. I live in constant fear of being discovered or found out as this would most likely lead to divorce. In mormon theology, the man is suppose to be the Priesthood leader in the home and is responsible for the spiritual wellbeing of the family, ultimately helping his family reach exaltation in the celestial kingdom. Trust me, I know how ridiculous that sounds. And if I'm not THAT GUY, my wife would have no use for me and she would need to seek out a more "worthy" spouse.

I know this isn't the case with many other mormon families, but my wife and her family are very staunch and literal when it comes to the beliefs of the mormon church. I try to be careful with how I say things and express my opinion because if I was to admit to not believing, I really believe our relationship would end and I wouldn't have as much access to my kids.

I'm struggling trying to live a phony life and put on a mask. I feel like a hypocrite and a fraud. I really hope my kids don't get sucked into this belief system but I find that I can't even speak freely with them about my doubts and try to encourage them to be skeptical and research what they are being taught. I'm stuck and am afraid of losing my family if I am honest.

I assume the response would be to decide what I really want, to live a Disingenuous life and keep my family together with the results being my kids grow up with a terrible world view, or be honest and try to influence my kids to seek the truth...but then getting divorced and having less one on one time with them? Perhaps my story will help someone else dealing with a similar issue, maybe this is something they cover all the time on the show and it wouldn't be very beneficial to even call in. What would you suggest I do, call with the fear that someone might recognize my voice, or seek help by other means?

#reddit

0 notes

mindfulldsliving · 29 days ago

Text

Exaltation and Misconceptions: Clarifying Joseph Smith’s Role in LDS Belief

Joseph Smith’s name often stirs strong opinions—both admiration and misunderstanding. A common claim is that Latter-day Saints worship him, but this is far from accurate. In the faith, Joseph Smith is revered as a prophet, much like Moses or Peter in the Bible, not as a deity. Misconceptions like these can blur the truth and fuel unnecessary confusion. By exploring scripture and core LDS beliefs,…

#Bible #Biblical analysis of Matthew 19 and LDS theology #Biblical foundation of LDS exaltation doctrine #Biblical view of prophets #Brigham Young teachings on Joseph Smith #Christ-centered LDS beliefs #Christianity #Clarifying myths about Latter-day Saint worship practices #Do Latter-day Saints worship Joseph Smith?#Do Mormons worship Joseph Smith or Christ?#faith #God #How Latter-day Saints view Joseph Smith #Importance of Joseph Smith in LDS restoration #Jesus #Joseph Smith worship myth #Judgment roles in Christianity #Key LDS biblical references #LDS Apologetics #LDS celestial kingdom beliefs #LDS doctrine explained #LDS exaltation doctrine #LDS temple symbolism explained #LDS theology and Joseph Smith #Matthew 10:41 prophet&039;s reward #Matthew 19:25-29 interpretation #Misconceptions about Latter-day Saints #Modern prophets in LDS faith #Prophetic authority in the Bible #Revelation 24 elders symbolism

0 notes

nerdygaymormon · 10 months ago

Text

Thoughts on Queer People as part of the Eternal Family

That word "the" is important! In our church we usually speak of eternal families like there's a bunch of individual ones and we're hoping to turn our earthly family into one of them. But in LDS theology, we are all linked together to form the great family of God.

“For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect.” (D&C 128:18). Everyone talking about being exalted without their LGBTQ+ family members WON’T BE. Our theology is one of inclusion, expansion, and progress. Our work is not done. If same-gender couples and trans people aren’t exalted, NO ONE will be. We cannot be pro-family and anti-LGBTQ+ at same time. 100% of LGBTQ+ people are from families and are part of God's eternal family.

Being a queer member of the LDS Church means I tense up a little every time I hear the word "family" spoken in church, but it shouldn't be that way. I try to remember that Jesus didn't create a single traditional family during His lifetime. He never performed a marriage. He didn't get married. He didn't have children. Instead, Jesus redefined family by constructing a chosen family. Jesus created a new way of doing family, one which could include everyone.

Unfortunately, this chosen family approach isn't the model of family emphasized in our church, which means all the goals in our church are designed for straight people, and that's not me so it feels like I will never measure up. Our church has a doctrinal gap about what happens to anyone in the afterlife who isn't in a man+woman marriage, including singles and queer people. I believe I'm included in God's plan, just not in the Church's version of God's plan.

Humans crave to love and be loved, to have companionship, we have a God-given sex drive (this is not meant to dismiss my aro/ace friends, I'm speaking in generalities). How cruel for people to be created this way and then told these things are not for us and we are to shut down these fundamental parts of who we are. We're to be miserable in this life for a shot a happiness after death. Does this sound like the plan of a loving God? Especially when everyone else is offered a win/win proposition to find happiness in this life and it will carry over to the other side.

I have a feeling that Latter-day Saints are going to be deeply surprised at who all makes it to the Celestial Kingdom, and at how loving our Heavenly Parents are, and how family structures & sealings are going to be far more inclusive than many currently believe. What I know is God is in charge, ultimately God will win. The Godly approach in attitude, whether it’s on matters of race, gender, or sexual orientation, God will win and we will be the one eternal family because that’s the way He’s designed it. We won’t be pushing others away and singling them out as “them.” It’ll be “us.” In the interim, those of us who are deemed “the other,” whatever the “other” is, need to recognize that God will win.

#tumblrstake #queerstake

75 notes · View notes

ainsi-soit-il · 2 months ago

Note

Regarding other non-trinitarian groups, I would not consider Oneness Pentecostals and Arians to be theologically Christian either, though again, as far as anthropology goes, I think it makes sense to place them in the "Christian" category. Same goes for various other non-trinitarian religious groups that emerged from Christianity (Jehovah's Witnesses, La Luz del Mundo, etc.). I might not consider myself to be a sibling in Christ with y'all or these various other groups, but I don't deny we have a common history.

Regarding pre-Nicene Christianity, I feel like the question implies that the Trinity was entirely unheard of before the Council of Nicaea, which is not my understanding of Christian history. Even before Nicaea, we still have the Trinitarian formula and the word Trinity, and while a lot of the explanatory language isn't quite what we're familiar with (e. g. iirc Justin Martyr uses some slightly different wording than what most modern orthodox Christians would be accustomed to), the underlying ideas are very much there. Based on what we do have, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that the idea was there even if the Nicene Creed itself wasn't there yet.

I also think it's worth bearing in mind that prior to Nicaea, the Church spent a lot of energy just. trying to survive. While persecution was at times more localized, and some government officials were more tolerant than others, this was still the Church under such delightful characters as Nero. That doesn't mean Church councils didn't happen (The Book of Acts describes the Council of Jerusalem, for example), but most of the pre-Nicene councils were not on the same scale as Nicaea (which makes sense; when you're facing off-and-on persecution, gathering a significant number of your religious leaders from across the Roman world into one township is pretty dangerous).

In addition, it's also worth considering that the issues facing the Early Church in, say, the 1st century are not the same as the issues facing the Early Church in the 4th century. We see examples of the questions they were facing early on in other texts (e. g. "What is the role of the Jewish Law in the Christian life?" throughout the New Testament epistles, "Are Christians atheists and/or cannibals?" in Justin Martyr's Apology, etc.). So I'd posit another reason why we don't see the exact language we see from 325 onward is because the questions being asked (from both inside and outside the Church) looked different.

What's more, I recognize that I'm approaching this issue as a Christian with a couple thousand years' worth of biblical and theological tradition to look back on. There are God-knows-how-many theologians who have had far more time to think about the best way to word this incredibly challenging theological concept, and I have the benefit of being able to read their work. Christians living before 325 didn't have that, and with that in mind, I'm pretty humbled. I don't know that I'd do half as well as my pre-Nicene theological forebears at articulating these same ideas.

All of that is to say, yes, I would consider pre-Nicene Christians to be Christian. They may not have used the precise language a post-Nicene Christian like me would be familiar with, and they may not have written in detail or at length about trinitarianism, but I don't think that necessarily means they were automatically not orthodox in their understanding of God.

Regarding what LDS theology teaches about Christ's divinity, I genuinely appreciate that clarification, @demoisverysexy. Your clarification led me to this essay on LDS Christology from BYU professor Grant Underwood, which goes into some of the ins and outs of Christ's exaltation, the LDS perspective on His divinity, and a more LDS-inclined reading of Christian history. While I'm still not sold on the view that y'all are theologically Christian, I do want to better understand what y'all believe, even if I disagree with it.

Thanks again, God bless, and Merry Christmas!

mormons are christians

(((This is also about to get really long and unwieldy so. Apologies for that too.)))

In LDS theology, however, this Father-Child relationship language is not an analogy. It's literal. We are the biological spirit children of a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother.

In the event that someone tries to claim I am making all this stuff up or misrepresenting LDS beliefs, the LDS Church is completely transparent about this aspect of their theology:

"Every person who was ever born on earth is our spirit brother or sister." (Spirit Children of Heavenly Parents)

#((yeah i know it's not christmastide yet but we don't really have a greeting for advent to my knowledge. somebody should get on that.))#as a possible point of comparison to the development of trinitarian language #english used to not have the word 'orange' and so artists and writers used different language to describe it #that doesn't mean no one before the 16th-17th century had any idea that there was such a color as orange #they were just calling it 'saffron' and 'tawny' and 'yellow-red' because they didn't have the word 'orange' yet #i see the development of trinitarian language similarly #just because the language wasn't what we have doesn't mean the idea would have been foreign #anyhow sorry for taking a long time to reply #christianity tag #if you could hie to kolob

21 notes · View notes

nerdygaymormon · 2 years ago

Text

1 Nephi 16:2 - wherefore the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center

Here’s some hard truths--

Queer members of the LDS church experience the symptoms of PTSD at a rate 10 times higher than others. Studies also show they experience a lower quality of life, have lower self esteem, and have higher rates of depression. LGBTQ+ adults and youth are at significantly elevated risk for suicide and suicidal thoughts.

LGBTQ+ individuals are are at higher risk of these things because of how they are mistreated and stigmatized.

At church, would a queer person hear messages that serve to “other” them, and isolate them from the group. At church, are unkind things said about queer people? If there is a queer person who is out, do people make unkind comments about them? Is the theology welcoming and inclusive, or does it suggest queer people aren’t valued and aren’t wanted? Do queer people get to hold leadership positions and do all the things non-queer people do at church? Are transgender and nonbinary people affirmed?

These things impact people’s mental health and well-being.

It’s disheartening how many “blessings” for others are turned into a “disadvantage” for queer people. For example, the idea of being sealed to a spouse and being exalted in heaven sounds great...for cishet people. Queer relationships are excluded from these blessing and instead are told they’re going to a lower kingdom of heaven where they’ll be separated from their family forever. What is a beautiful hope for non-queer people turns into a rejecting message for queer people.

If you are preaching and practicing discrimination against queer people in the name of God and religion, may these hard truths showing the fruit of your efforts cutteth you to your very center.

#queer scriptures #queer faith #queerstake #tumblrstake

36 notes · View notes

nerdygaymormon · 5 years ago

Note

I've always heard that people who suffer from "same sex attraction" will be fixed in the next life. I know that the church doesn't believe that being gay is a choice or a punishment for not being faithful anymore. But I haven't read anything from the church that says that gays will still be gay in the next life.

You are correct, the Church does not teach that gay people will be gay in heaven.

—————————

LDS theology is that the Celestial Kingdom will be made up of married straight couples sealed to each other who will be like God by having eternal increase (which they interpret to mean having children for eternity).

This view of heaven does not leave space for anyone who is not cisgender or heterosexual unless they contort themselves to act and look like a cishet person.

For decades the LDS Church taught that gay people don’t exist, that God would not do that to people because it frustrates “the plan.”

—————————

It’s still pretty recent, but the LDS Church has come to accept that being gay is not a choice, the scientific evidence is overwhelming that it is biological.

Since it is not a choice, the church made a shift to say that while homosexuality occurs in mortality, it did not exist in pre-earth life and will not exist after this life. Again, because it doesn’t fit within their view of heaven.

In the meantime, while gay/bi people wait to die and be made straight, they’re to remain alone and celibate.

Most queer members of the church I talk to think of their queerness as part of their eternal nature, something that they believe was part of their pre-earth spirit and will be part of their post-earth soul.

My personal opinion is their view of heaven needs to expand to include queer people. And even if it doesn’t, they need to come up with what queer people are supposed to do in life, not simply we don’t know why you’re made this way but don’t you dare act on it because it’s wrong and evil. How does our gender identity and sexual orientation bless our lives and of those around us?

—————————

Unfortunately, in October 2019 Elder Oaks changed the Church’s position regarding trans, non-binary, gender fluid individuals to say that they are “confused.” And when they talk about “gender” being eternal, they mean biological sex as determined at birth.

Previously the position was we don’t know enough about people who are transgender. While not as much research has been done, it is showing biology is also at the root of people having a gender identity that differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. The Church is again setting themselves up to deny reality because it doesn’t fit their theology.

How can it be that Heavenly Parents created such diversity only to give it no place in their plan? It’s why I believe the Church doesn’t have a complete vision of “the plan.” To believe otherwise is to believe that God intentionally sets people up to not be exalted, and that doesn’t strike me as something a kind, loving parent would do.

46 notes · View notes

nerdygaymormon · 5 years ago

Text

Gospel Topic Essays

In 2013 & 2014, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released a series of essays that address a number of question and criticisms. These essays have been approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of 12 Apostles. The stated reason for the essays is gathering accurate information and making it available.

I added a few thoughts in italics

Are Mormons Christian - Members of the Church believe in and teach of Christ, but they don’t believe in the post-New Testament Creeds, and have scriptures in addition to the Bible. The LDS Church also is not a direct descendant of an existing Christian church.

What Mormons mean by the word “Christian” is different than the rest of Christianity. Mormons are Christian in that they believe Jesus was the Messiah and redeemer of the world.

Becoming Like God - Since people are the spirit children of God, we have the potential to develop and grow to become like God. The essay includes some Bible verses to support this teaching, but most of the world interprets them differently.

The essay leaves out Bible verses that would seem to contradict this teaching. The Bible, at best, is mixed. There aren’t any verses from the Book of Mormon included because this concept is absent from that book.

God was once like humans are now. And people can become gods. We teach God is married, so there are godly roles for both men & women. Does this make us polytheists? Yes, in that there are many gods, but really no because we only worship our Heavenly Father and will continue doing so even when we become gods ourselves.

How does someone become like God? It’s the covenant path we hear so much about. Baptism, Melchizedek Priesthood (if you’re male), temple endowment, sealed to a spouse, obey temple covenants.

Sounds pretty good, except...

What about if your spouse or children are unworthy? If you’re gay? If you get divorced? A widowed husband gets married & sealed to a 2nd wife, what if the 1st wife isn’t into polygamy?

Book of Mormon and DNA Studies - The purpose of the Book of Mormon is spiritual, not historical. There’s no DNA evidence to confirm that Middle Eastern people came to the Americas prior to Christopher Columbus. This essay goes through many possible excuses for why no DNA of the Jaredites, Nephites or Lamanites has yet been found in the Americas.

The introduction page to the Book of Mormon used to say that the Jaredites & Nephites were destroyed, leaving the Lamanites who are "the principal ancestors of the American Indians.” DNA evidence forced a change, it now says, Lamanites are “among” the ancestors of the American Indians.

Book of Mormon Translation - Joseph placed either the interpreters (Urim & Thummim) or his seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out light, and read aloud the English words that appeared. He dictated the words, not punctuation, to the scribes. The scribes wrote their own punctuation and that is what was printed. Most changes in the Book of Mormon have involved punctuation and creating verses & chapters.

It’s not a “translation” in the usual sense of that word. An examination of the characters on the plate wasn’t typically involved (despite much of the artwork that suggests otherwise), in fact, the plates often weren’t visible. There’s no way to test the accuracy of the translation.

Also, some other changes beyond punctuation and creating chapters/verses has taken place, like having some of the more racist language toned down.

First Vision Accounts - Joseph had a vision (not necessarily an actual visitation) in which 2 heavenly beings appeared to him.

Joseph published 2 accounts of this vision during his lifetime. Two additional accounts (from his autobiography and from a journal) have been found and published in the 1960′s. There are also 5 descriptions of Joseph Smith’s vision recorded by others who heard Joseph speak about the vision.

That makes 9 different accounts, and there are some differences between them. The essay explains that different accounts emphasize different details. Memories fade over time and things get remembered differently.

There is a generally consistent theme across the different versions, but the first written account comes many years after the vision is supposed to have occurred, which makes me wonder how accurate or reliable it is.

Joseph Smith’s Teachings about Priesthood, Temple and Women - During the 19th century, women frequently blessed the sick by a prayer of faith, and many women received priesthood blessings promising that they would have the gift of healing. In reference to these healing blessings, Relief Society general president Eliza R. Snow explained in 1883, "Women can administer in the name of JESUS, but not by virtue of the Priesthood."

That’s because the priesthood was new & fresh, but understanding changed as Joseph Smith received more revelations.

I think they stuck to Joseph Smith’s teachings so they wouldn’t have to go into the misogynistic teachings of Brigham Young or Spencer Kimball. At the time of Joseph’s death, women were still doing healings & had control of the Relief Society.

Priesthood power is given to women in the temple as part of the endowment ceremony. When a couple is sealed in the temple, together they enter into an order of the priesthood. Women can officiate in the priesthood in ordinances for other women. Women can officiate when only women are getting the ordinance, when it is for men & women then the men are in charge.

Women and the Priesthood today - well, they still can do stuff in the temple.

Mother in Heaven - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all human beings, male and female, are beloved spirit children of heavenly parents, a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. This understanding is rooted in scriptural and prophetic teachings about the nature of God, and the godly potential of men and women. The doctrine of a Heavenly Mother is a cherished and distinctive belief among Latter-day Saints.

According to things taught through most of church history, this essay could have been titled Mothers in Heaven. We each have a mother & father in heaven, we each have the same father but there could be many different mothers in heaven. Good old polygamy, interwoven into our theology.

6 paragraphs, that’s all? Shouldn’t we know more? What is heaven like for women?

Peace in Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints - The Latter-day Saints were persecuted, often violently, for their beliefs. Several incidents are discussed.

Well, to be accurate, it was more for their actions than their beliefs. We weren’t exactly great neighbors to non-members of the church.

And, tragically, some Church members participated in deplorable violence against people they perceived to be their enemies. Joseph Smith had the Danites, and a stake president ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Brigham Young taught that some sins were serious enough that the person should be killed as part of forgiveness process (blood atonement).

The early Mormons had many threats and violence done against them, and they also did the same to others. It was a rough time.

Imagine all the things said & done against the LGBTQ+ community by the Church--denying they exist, electro-shock therapy, advocating for laws to limit & take away their rights. In a real sense the church isn’t a good neighbor to this group. In an earlier time, this might get settled via guns and violence.

Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo - God commanded people in ancient Israel to have polygamous marriages. As part of the restoration of all things, God commanded Joseph Smith to introduce polygamy.

The verses cited just indicate that polygamy was practiced in Old Testament times, not that God commanded anyone to have such marriages.

Joseph really didn’t want to do it (or worried about how his wife Emma would react), so God had to send an angel 3 times between 1834 and 1842 to command him to proceed with plural marriage. During the final appearance, the angel came with a drawn sword, threatening Joseph with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment fully.

The concept of polygamy was part of the revelation on eternal marriage and is how to be exalted with God.

The essay says there wasn’t much instruction on how to do polygamy, I think this is meant to suggest that mistakes happened because people didn’t know better. D&C 132 does have a number of instructions, some of which were ignored. Such as the 1st wife had to give permission for any additional wife, and the additional wives each have to be virgins.

Joseph kept most of his marriages secret from Emma, and he married other men’s wives who most assuredly weren’t virgins.

Joseph had 30-40 wives. His oldest wife was 56 and the youngest was 14.

Polygamy was illegal. Most people who participated were told to keep it secret. Also important for married women to keep it a secret from their first husband. Rumors spread and so “carefully worded denials” were issued in which they’d switch one word, or change the meaning of a word. Basically it looks like they were lying because it would mean trouble.

Wilford Woodruff issued a manifesto in 1890 which led to the end of polygamy (eventually...it took a second manifesto in 1904 to end it officially).

A form of polygamy still survives. Men who remarry may be sealed to their additional wives. People can do temple work to seal women who were married to more than one man during their lifetimes but not sealed to them. Only men are allowed to be sealed to more than one person whilst alive.

Plural Marriage and Families in early Utah - Church members do not understand the purposes for instituting the practice of plural marriage during the 19th century. The essay heavily suggests that having a lot of children was a primary purpose.

Footnote 6 says “Studies have shown that monogamous women bore more children per wife than did polygamous wives except the first.” In all likelihood, polygamy led to fewer children than probably would have been born in a monogamous society

Accounts left by men and women who practiced plural marriage attest to the challenges and difficulties they experienced, such as financial difficulty, interpersonal strife, and some wives’ longing for the sustained companionship of their husbands. Virtually all of those practicing it in the earliest years had to overcome their own prejudice against plural marriage and adjust to life in polygamous families.

Few would have entered into plural marriages if leaders didn’t emphasize that polygamy was required for a man’s highest exaltation in the life to come, and women who refused plural marriage could find themselves single & a servant in heaven. Polygamous wives were so unhappy that Brigham Young eventually gave an ultimatum, 2 weeks to freely leave the territory or stop whining and fully live their religion.

Plural marriage was an illegal practice and members engaged in civil disobedience against such laws. In direct violation of the 12th Article of Faith

The essay shows Mormon polygamy in a very favorable light.

The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage - Polygamous marriage was illegal in the United States and the LDS Church fled to Mexico but the United States took the territory they were fleeing to. The Church felt that polygamy was protected under the Constitution’s freedom of religion but the Supreme Court disagreed.

Given the importance polygamy to the church’s beliefs about heaven, the members were encouraged to disregard the law and obey God. After 2 decades of increasing troubles, many polygamous families headed to Canada or Mexico to escape US justice (nevermind polygamy was just as illegal in those countries).

When the US Supreme Court upheld the legality of confiscating church property, this could mean that temple ordinances would end when those buildings are seized. Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto to ban polygamy in 1890. This calmed things with the US government and within 3 years Utah was admitted as a state.

Members continued entering into new plural marriages for about 15 more years, but in declining numbers. In 1899 the newly-elected senator from Utah was not allowed to take his seat in Congress because he had 3 wives, including one he married after the manifesto. When an apostle was elected in 1903, he also was not allowed to take his seat as an investigation took place into the church & polygamy, even church president Joseph F. Smith testified before Congress.

President Smith testified that the Manifesto removed God’s commandment on the church to practice polygamy, but didn’t forbid individuals from choosing to continue to be polygamous. He issued a Second Manifest at the April General Conference forbidding members from entering new polygamous marriages.

Race and the Priesthood - The Church was established in 1830, many people of African descent in the United States lived in slavery, and racial prejudice were believed by most white Americans.

From the mid-1800s until 1978—the Church did not ordain men of black African descent to its priesthood or allow black men or women to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances.

This is true, but one would hope a church which claims revelation through prophets would be able to overcome cultural norms that aren’t in line with the gospel.

Church leaders taught many things to explain the ban, and today, all of that is rejected by the church and considered error. These weren’t just teachings, they were doctrines. And the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham were used to justify bigotry, such as stating that the curse of Cain was a dark skin.

International expansion of the church, especially in Brazil, forced the church into difficult situations. The Church in the USA was also under heavy pressure for the priesthood restrictions.

Church president Spencer W. Kimball spent many hours praying for revelation to undo the priesthood ban. The essay makes it sound like some big revelation was received, but it wasn’t that way. It was a process, a statement drafted and changes made to it and voted on.

Today, the Church disavows all teachings that teach any race or ethnicity if inferior in any way, or that mixed-race marriages are wrong. Church leaders unequivocally condemn all racism.

No reason for the priesthood ban is put forward in this article other than racism. The past leaders were racists and that blinded them to what God wanted for black people. There’s a big lesson in that.

Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the book of Abraham as scripture.

A traveling salesman sold several Egyptian papyri and mummies to Joseph Smith. He was excited to learn one papyrus was scripture from Abraham and set to translating it.

After the church left Nauvoo, Joseph’s family sold the Egyptian artifacts and they eventually ended up in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. In 1967, the museum transferred these fragments to the Church.

Discovery of the papyri allowed an examination of Joseph Smith’s translation. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham.

Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri.

The essay mostly tries to explain how it is possible for Joseph Smith to have called the process for bringing forth the book of Abraham a "translation" when it is obvious that it was not a translation of the Egyptian papyri in his possession

#before these essays many of these positions would be considered anti-Mormon #tumblrstake

30 notes · View notes