Jul 10, 2012
Zilpha and John talk with Mike about Mormon Expression
By John Larsen
Tags: abrahamic, Culture, Feminism, friendship, Joseph Smith, McConkie, Mormonism, priesthood, testimony, Tolerance, women
We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression…. unless you were born into the wrong branch of the Abrahamic family tree.
It is referred to as a curse but it is in fact a protection. To take on the responsibilities of the priesthood amonst a society where it would be unable to take root would lead to the priesthood itself damning the individual.
Mike is absolutely maddening. Go Zilpha go. I laughed when you kept saying then men are in charge and Mike kept trying to play it down like men and women are equals. What a bunch of horse crap. The church is very clearly designed for the leadership of men and men only.
So who is more important at the dairy farm, the Shepherd or the Milkmaid?
Well, clearly whichever of the two has the penis.
Long live Mike! As crazy as he makes me, he helps create an interesting dynamic on ME. I would hope that the makers of ME or the new podcast would always invite Mike onto the show.
Also, I know this has been talked about before but I am sure ME helps more people to leave then stay. If you ultimately want the Church to be eliminated then ME is like a vaccine. It may be counter productive for a few, but for the most part it moves you to your goal.
I’m bummed the Podcast is scaling back, but happy to hear from MIke again! I’ve missed what he adds to the show. In a sense he actually makes John MORE moderate because everyone else is so strongly against Mike, John, as a contrarian then takes more of a middle road. Recently I heard Bob Garfeild say something like ‘every LIberal has a totalitarian in them, you just need to find where’. and I think Mike pushes those totalitarian buttons for many MoEx listeners.
If I am a contrarian like you suggest, then I would change my position depending on whomever I am talking to. Either find an example of me changing a position in response to whom I am talking to or retract the unsavory accusation.
I may be wrong but I really don’t think @Christopheralmond:disqus meant it as an insult. I think he just meant that you like to point out when you disagree about something and aren’t afraid of being vocal about it. But I see your point. To steal from a great movie: Maybe that word doesn’t mean what I think it means. (I’ve used it a few times in the same way C did here and see now that I was probably unintentionally being a dick.)
John, I believe there is at least one way the Church can adopt Gay Marriage without altering their core doctrines. Allow gay people to have temple marriage for time only. (a temple ceremony which already exists). This would be in line with abandoning the Law of Consecration or Polygamy because it is a ‘higher’ law which too difficult, so we are allowed to now keep a ‘lower’ law while on this earth. It would be rightly offensive to gay people, but it allows gay marriage with traditional Celestial marriage remaining in piece. Also, there are a handful of incredibly rare individuals with both ovaries and testes. http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90782/7108711.html
This would entail a two class system in the Church. It would not be tolerated in the long run. It wouldn’t take long before members would notice that medicore and inferior hetero couples would be rewarded with eternal marriage in comparison to some superior homosexual couples denied this ultimate reward of Mormonism. Additionally, homosexuals and their friends would be forced to confront the idea that loving couples would be separated in the eternities and not granted the highest ideals of mormon celestial reward.
In fact, what you describe is close to what we have now. It didn’t work before 1978 and it won’t work in the future.
You would still have to allow them a temple recommend. If they are actively seeking to live an abomination they could not receive one.
John, i find your views on tolerance… difficult. If you want to say that we as a society should not tolerate ‘crazy’ beliefs, then who do you propose sets the standard of what beliefs are ‘crazy’? The government? (When republicans are in power, there should be no tolerance for non-Christians?) The broader society? (Whenever someone comes out with a new and jarring idea, their ideas should not be tolerated, and prohibited from being expressed or disseminated by social shunning?) I think the reason we must tolerate ‘crazy’ beliefs, is because no matter who you are, some people find your beliefs ‘crazy’. And above all else, rules must be fair. When you teach we should not tolerate crazy beliefs, you are saying that Christians or Mormons SHOULD NOT tolerate you and..I don’t know, destroy your podcast, like the Nauvoo Expositer. Under the ethics you teach on tolerance, Josesph Smith behaved admirably in having their printing press destroyed.
Well, let make sure I understand what you are saying. Do you believe, like me, that only some ideas should be tolerated by society–or do you believe every idea should be tolerated by society?
You question on who is to enforce the ban on detrimental ideas–the answer is society. If a society has no regulatory power over its citizenry then that society is indistinguishable from anarchy and it is unwarranted to even call it a society. All societies have had forms of policing themselves, there are many to choose from. But I don’t think that is what you want to discuss.
So again, should society tolerate the propagation of any and all ideas, no matter how detrimental to that society?
A fair question, John. I’ll take a shot at it. But first, a definition or two.
First, when you use the term “society,” I’m assuming you mean one or more government bodies. The reason for my assumption is that banning the propagation of an idea almost always requires the use or at least the threat of physical force. And government is — by definition and under law — the only societal institution that may acceptably employ physical force. That is government’s reason for being.
Second, when you use the term “propagation,” I’m assuming you mean advocating an idea verbally or through the media. Alternatively, someone who propagates an idea might be trying to put it into practice. This alternative definition shouldn’t cause too much controversy here: As the Supreme Court said in the Reynolds case involving Mormon polygamy, someone can advocate for an idea all they want, but society can lawfully prohibit that idea from being put into practice.
Your question therefore seems to boil down to this: What is or should be the legal limitation of free speech? The answer that I and probably most other people would give is the classic one about shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater. In other words, any speech that constitutes the proximate cause of injury, fraud, loss, or illegal activity should not be tolerated. This would include ordering someone to bust up the Nauvoo Expositor, Mormon Expression, or the LDS Newsroom.
Sorry to butt in. People believe many things that are “crazy”. Some are benign such as the belief that once a year a fat white guy sneaks around the world giving gifts to people. Other beliefs result in atrocities like female genital mutilation, child brides, honour killings, and waging war for gain.
Perhaps the word “crazy” shouldn’t have been used. Beliefs that cause the marginalisation, hatred, persecution, or physical and mental pain of others should not be tolerated. Santa and the Easter Bunny are OK.
Okay first? Zilpha FOR THE WIN! I loved how she kept quietly pointing out, ‘so they choose whose in charge of them’ over and over while the conversation rolled around her. That was fantastic and a very important point to make.
Second – Mike, I love your honesty. Like John, I think we probably disagree on all kinds of really essential points, but you have a basic honestly that refuses to dilute or dial down or dismiss uncomfortable doctrine simply because the current administration doesn’t find it expedient. I admire your devotion to a Mormonism that is actually historic and can be supported by scripture and foundational writings. I admit I don’t understand the logic of those writings all the time, but I think it’s great that you don’t lower the standard simply because current thinking or understanding makes things difficult.
Another good episode. I’m a bit confused by John though. But I can’t quite put my finger on it.
My confusion goes something like this, and maybe John can clarify. At the end there the distinction was made between disagreeing with Mike’s ideas, and not rejecting Mike as a person. In other places (blog post titled ‘Here I stand’ and follow up posts) John, you talk about how you have more disagreements with liberal mormons who don’t leave the church and thereby give it their implied support. But it seems like the liberal mormons are kind of saying the same thing as you were saying with Mike Tannehill. “I disagree with believing mormons, but I don’t reject them as people.”
I’ve taken your blog posts (Here I stand, The Vanguard, Amen and Amen) to be a sort of call for us apostates to come out of the closet as it were. Kind of like that scene in the movie Milk when Harvey Milk tells his team they are changing strategy. “If people know a gay person they vote in favor of us 2 to 1. We’ve got to come out of the closet. If any of you haven’t told your family, here’s the phone.” — And I agree completely. Since that time (although it was terrifying to me) I’ve owned the word apostate, and spoken openly with family about my disbelief. In a way, I’ve come out of the closet to my family. I plan on resigning, but I plan on doing so on my own timeline, and on my own terms.
But I just get the feeling there’s an argument you’ve got going with some of the liberal mormons out there, but I don’t know/can’t tell exactly where the point of disagreement lies. Is there one? Or am I just picking up on a weariness of having the same conversations over and over with newly minted apostates who (like me) have been struggling with how exactly to come out of their closets?
Oh dear… I’m about to respond for someone else. Nothing good can come of this.
I loved this episode because it outlined Mike’s own point of view AND why John defends him, and I think it was pretty clear.
John seems to think (oddly maybe, but reasonably to me) that Mormons should own up to their own history and doctrine. Stop trying to spin it. Stop trying to pull it in a more liberal direction or stretch it over here to cover a historical anomaly. Own up loud and proud. YES Mormons teach that you can have your own planet – no, scratch that, your own damn universe! You’ll have to earn it and work for it and sacrifice for it and it’s not at all a done deal when you join up, but yes, that’s the end idea. YES that includes a Mother in Heaven – probably multiple ones. YES there is a pre-existence and it implies a hierarchy here on earth and possible racism and sexism and classism – but THAT’S THE DOCTRINE. So own it. If you’re embarrassed by it or offended by it, then this isn’t the religion for you! *
Mike does just that. He owns it. All of it. The embarrassing bits (which he defends) and the bits that make Nicean Christians cringe, and all of it. He plants his flippin standard right there smack dab in REAL OLD Mormonism (before the confusion of correlation and modern apologetics kicked in) and he fights it out. He believes in it. All of it. And, know what? While I don’t agree with pretty much ANYTHING he says about a whole lot of essential stuff, I totally admire that he has the honesty to fight his ground here. And I THINK that’s what John admires about him.
The thing is that the correlated Mormonism doesn’t work with Mormonism as a whole. There’s a really basic disconnect – okay, there are DOZENS of disconnects. So when someone argues that REALLY preside means equal or that REALLY the BoM never said word one about a curse relating to dark skin – well, that’s dishonest. And for liberal Mormonism to work all sorts of those ‘REALLY’ ideas have to be plastered on to the 19th century reality that is The Church which results in an ugly, horrible, distorted beast of a religion that simply doesn’t hold up to any kind of realistic viewing.
I like John’s analogy of ‘real’ Anasazi vs the interpretations that modern native groups want to apply to the culture. It’s nice. It’s reasonable. It’s almost heart-breaking how understandable it is to want to paint current ethics and understandings on a mythic past. But that doesn’t change the actual past, and for Mormons it’s simply untenable. however much they want to re-write history and scripture the actual practice is still there and Mike, give him great credit, is valiantly sustaining at least a bit of that practice. It isn’t palatable to a lot of people. It isn’t nice or even logical – but it IS at least one very, VERY well documented version of ‘real’ Mormonism, and it has a hell of a lot more history behind it that some apologetics.
*in case of confusion – I’m offended by it. This isn’t the religion for me.
I remember the weeks as my faith crisis first started to really precipitate. (Prior to that, the lame LDS apologetic tricks had succeeded in pushing the equilibrium in my mind toward ‘belief’) The faith crisis was this terrifying realization that it really came down to a choice of living up to my best sense of what is right, and leaving, or not living up to my sense of the right, and staying. And I knew deep down I had to make that choice, but I didn’t want to make it.
Thats black and white thinking. Its not that simple — I told myself these things in an effort to rationalize not leaving ,and facing the difficult chasm that lie ahead.
And Megan, your description of the lies necessary to plaster over 19th century mormonism rang very true to me. I am very familiar with how that feels to try to bend some embarrassing fact into something that sounds reasonable.
Megan thank you for the kind words.
As far as presiding goes I think the Bishops analogy aptly describes it. He is responsible for the content and outcome, for the defense of where the borders are, but that does not mean he acts as lord and master to the members of the ward. He is supposed to be uplifting and inspiring and full of positive reinforcement. I think the best marriages are like that.
And while it is clear in the Book of Mormon as to how the Lamanites skin is darkened I am unsure myself as to the exact time the Negro race had its skin darkened. It may have been over Cain and his family or it may have come later on. I have heard various arguements and I have not decided for myself.
I’m not sure I want to listen to this. I’ll wait until I’m in the right frame of mind – just like how you have to be before dropping acid.
It’s all starting to come together … Mike was spelling it all out piece by piece. The veil … the gate keeper … every gatekeeper waits for… her Key Master! … Joseph was Gazelem … Don’t you all see! … that’s the son of Gozer the Traveler … Oh my goodness … The temple! That’s what the temple is for … Mike even mentioned Ghostbusters … and anal cavities … that’s where the Key masters hide their keys … keys … Keys of the priesthood! I’m going back and listen again … I’m sure Mike left more clues … Let’s see …. Abrahamic covenant … spelled backwards – tnanevoc cimaharba … No … that’s not it … Abra… Abracadabra? the faculty of Abrac? … Yes! Lucy was trying to tell us too … Is this what Mike meant by us all needing to get our own revelation?
Holy crap I literally laughed out loud reading your post. Thanks for making my day!
Laugh again Richard
Excellent conversation! I love Mike so much! (seriously)
Where’s the photo we were promised of Zilpha giving you the stink eye?
Damn you Mike T! You destroyed my testimony! If it weren’t for John Larsen and his delightful podcast I would have left the church long ago!
I said in it in a comment back on the “Bias..” episode, Mike drives me nuts (because I’m a namby pamby mo type) but he has always been great for the discussion. He is so unflinching and sincere in describing the unfiltered mainstream doctrine of the church, which I was taught all my life and continue to hear at church today. And he does it with such poise and good nature it only make he more angry.
However, I hadn’t made the connection before that Mike and John are a lot a like, and I totally agree with that notion.
Thank you RJH3. Be sure to take the truths of the gospel as you like them taught and apply it to your Church callings. Its never to late to start a good library to draw from.
Great podcast. I could listen to a thousand more of these – just John, Zilpha and Mike (and maybe a rotating fourth guest) just talking about stuff. These three personalities are what made Mormon Expression great (not that everyone else didn’t contribute as well).
John, I’ll keep listening to whatever you and Zilpha put out.
The problem is…not Mike’s answers necessarily but nobody in the presidency gives those types of answers!!! They simply say “we don’t know” that’s the problem…JS would ask God a question and get a vocal answer that was written down in the name of God!!!
Great pod cast. Mike it would great to see you on the pod cast more. I like it when it is not an echo chamber.
John although I now agree it is not worth the effort to get the church to reconcile with homosexuality, but when you say it can’t fit with Mormonism it makes me ask a few questions. Does it fit any less than monogamy as the new and everlasting covenant? Does Homosexuality fit with Mormonism any less than the current church practice fit with Brother Brigham’s statements on God’s views on race? It seems to me that the church will hang on as long as possible to their homophobia and when faced with any real threat to their continued existence or financial strength they will cave with little to no explanation, and no retraction of former statements. The church when given the choice of change or die, stop growing in financial strength, they choose change every time. Am I wrong?
The reason that it can never fit is because gender really does matter. The feminine and the masculine are important roles. Exaltation is the ultimate goal, and that role is one of creation. It takes a male and a female to create spiritual bodies for the intelligences that are gathered and taught.
Were in the scrptures does it say it takes male and female to creat in the eternities? But that is really besides the point. How this less compatible than other things the church has changed to survive? So one your statement is not scriptural it is conjecter. Two the brothern have given up far more important theological principles to servive than this. This to will become a servivil isue.
FIrst off, props to Mike for ever being on this podcast at all. I really do respect the guy for standing by what he truly believes. Yeah, he doesn’t always share his opinions in the most tactful of ways, but props to the guy for standing firm. The whole “everything ties into the Abrahamic covenant” thing really doesn’t fly with me, but if it works for him, more power to the guy. Secondly, I totally agree with John too. The Mormonism that MIke believes in has been overtaken by a bureaucratic, watered-down, wishy-washy, pseudo-protestantism that really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense anymore. In fact, we too often see current leaders of the Church play the “we’re not sure” or “I’m not sure that we teach that anymore” card, which I think is pretty weak. When members really look below the surface level of modern Mormonism, they are going to see a lot of the exciting (and scary) doctrines of Mormonism have slowly disappeared, being excused as mere speculation. Doctrines found in the King Follett Discourse, Lectures on Faith, Journal of Discourses, etc. are just about gone from current Mormon curriculum. I think this is sad, really. I’m not saying that I necessarily believe in old school Mormonism either, but I think it was more exciting, and really made an effort to “reveal” new and exciting doctrine in an effort to show that we really do “believe that [God] will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”
Thank you. One thign I have noticed is that if you listen to speeches given at BYU the brethren loosen up a little bit and share more of their own understandings than they do in conference.
FIrst off, props to Mike for ever being on this podcast at all. I really do respect the guy for standing by what he truly believes. Yeah, he doesn’t always share his opinions in the most tactful of ways, but props to the guy for standing firm My comment: How about Mohammed Atta and the crew that flew the airliners into the twin towers same respect for these guys? I mean this is the ultimate of steely-eyed standing firm, while you pilot a airplane into a building.
I really enjoy listening to John, Mike, and Zilpha argue. Such obviously nice people, and so intelligent, so articulate, so passionate.
Something Mike said about halfway through the podcast really struck me — something about how the universe has rules that even God has to obey. There it is, in a nutshell: the reason why Mormonism fundamentally has more in common with Atheism than it does with Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.
Mormonism and Atheism both hold that God is not the highest power in the universe — Mormonism because God has limitations, and Atheism because God doesn’t exist. Since Mormonism holds that God is not the First Cause but is instead subject to eternal progression, Mormonism cannot base its tenets on most of the classic philosophical arguments for God’s existence, for example, the Argument from Change, or from Time and Contingency, or from Ontology. Atheism also dismisses these arguments, generally because Atheism discounts truth claims that are not subject to scientific verification.
Mormonism and Atheism are both fundamentally empirical. Mormons rely on emotional and spiritual experiences. Atheists deny (correctly, in my opinion) that these experiences, or anything else, constitute empirical proof of God’s existence.
But here’s the thing: Not only is there no empirical proof of God’s existence. It is IMPOSSIBLE for any such proof to exist.
What, after all, could constitute such proof? Some great demonstration of power? How impressive would that demonstration have to be for us to conclude that it is beyond the capability of, say, a very advanced being from another planet? Why would it have to be from God?
This isn’t a problem if you define God as an advanced being from another planet. And that’s the key difference between Mormonism and the three large (pardon the term, Mike) Abrahamic faiths.
In truth God created the rules all things are governed by. He adheres to those rules, be they physics or philosophy, because they are pure truths that bring about the greatest degree of happiness and peace. To act against those laws would be to act against his own knowledge and character and He would cease to be God.
The Holy Ghost has a role in the Godhead to be a revelatior to us. Find Him and you find God. Follow Moroni’s promise and then you will know. It is that simple. People do it all the time.
I appreciate your reply and your sincerity, but I cannot find an authoritative church statement to the effect that God created everything, including the rules by which all things are governed.
Conversely, the King Follett Sermon is a clear statement that God did not create matter or intelligence, and that he became God “the same as all gods have done before,” i.e., by following certain rules or principles. http://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon
Is there anything in Mormon Doctrine/Speculation that prevents us from believing that there could be adoption in the eternities?
I don’t agree with Zilpha that a god can bypass possible universal laws but I’ve often wondered if gay gods could adopt children. Essentially that is what we are all doing here on Earth right? We are the adopted parents of the God’s spirit children.
The veil doctrine has been expressed in the Jewish culture, I think I heard Truman Madsen mention it, and Hugh Nibley talks about it just a little bit in Temple and Cosmos.
Exaltation is not about adopting it is about creating.It takes a man and a woman to “organize intelligence” and give those people a spiritual body.
Mike broke my little heart when he said that no one had ever e-mailed him to say that he had helped them stay in the church. I wish I could be the one to tell you, Mike.
I would like that. Please work toward that goal.
Just a few things I’d like to mention.
Mike, when your church creates bogus history, changes quotes, misses out most of the details of past events, adds things that never actually happened, pretends they always had certain doctrine when they did not etc etc; that’s called “lying”. You seem to have a very difficult time grasping the concept of what a lie is. It doesn’t matter who is telling the lies, a lie is always a lie. The fact that you can’t recognize lies when the LDS church tells them only demonstrates to the world how deeply you have been brainwashed into only seeing good in the church.
Your comments on the javelin through the heart of your cheating wife and her lover, as well as the missionary “death before deflowering” where you seemed to agree that it would be better for a person to come back dead (does suicide count?) from a mission than to have sex or even masturbate, places you firmly among the likes of the Taliban and other fundamentalist religious fanatics suffering from group delusion and skewed morals. I’m not sure if you saw the young woman being stoned to death recently for fornication. You might have it saved on your hard drive somewhere. When religious fanatics believe murder is an acceptable retribution or punishment for having consensual sex with another adult, THAT’S when you know their entire sense of what’s right and wrong has been corrupted. When you believe it’s acceptable for a church to lie so it can control children and teach them that lying is bad, you’ve moved into the twilight zone. Insane, circular, irrational thinking.
Your veil “analogy” should give you a clue that what you are trying to express is absolute nonsense. You seemed to struggle to wrap your own head around what you were saying. Talk about a stupor of thought. Like a little child trying to manufacture a story as to why the cookies are all gone, lies sound like lies and come across as confusing garbage. Truth is usually very simple and logical and easy to explain. Your dogma on race, gays, patrilineal name power or whatever you think you’re talking about are so blatantly creations of men. No God would create such an absurd system designed to create contention among his children. If the Mormon God was a parent in any civilized SECULAR society, he would be in trouble with social services.
That’s another thing, Mormons seem to have an *extremely* low opinion of God. Do you really believe almighty God has to wait for the secular “world” to become empathetic towards Blacks and towards the inequalities women face on a daily basis before he drops a “revelation” on his anointed telling the prophet that now is the time to give the Blacks the priesthood and to back off fighting tooth and nail against the ERA for women. A prophet of God stated repeatedly that the fight for Black civil rights is a communist plot, then when the Feds lean on the church, God caves in and VOILA! suddenly the everlasting truth of the gospel is changed yet again, just like it was changed with polygamy. So that’s US Federal government 2, God nil. And Mormons eat all the explanations up with a spoon. When I still believed in God, MY god would have stepped in and took some action because I had faith – far more faith than Mormons who claim to truly believe. I believed so fully that I was sure I would rot somewhere terrible in the next life because I’m gay, and I believed what my church leaders told me – that I chose to be gay. That;s how brainwashed and crazy I was as a Mormon. I knew I was born gay. I could remember being fascinated and drawn to male teachers when I was in Year 3 (7 years old); not in a sexual way, but in the same way other boys clung to certain female teachers. I had never made the choice to be gay. I hated being gay; prayed for hours daily and fasted until I was seen by a doctor because my parents suspected I had an eating disorder. I did things to hurt myself so I could be punished. I loathed myself so much I could not look at my reflection in mirrors or windows. Yet I believed I chose all of this and could change because the supposedly inspired leaders of the Mormon church told me I had chosen this life of evil. That’s cult mind control Mike. I knew for a fact one thing, yet believed another. Now it seems the “inspired” church leaders are realizing that you can’t pray away the gay, or marry it away, or wish, hope, mutilate, hate or Prozac away the gay. When I finally saw through the lie I was being told about myself, all the other lies became obvious, and it all fell like a house of cards.
You see, I know what a lie is. I don’t like lies and I try to never lie. I disapprove of others lying and tell them so. I have the moral high ground over people like you when it comes to telling the truth Mike. I don’ allow anyone else to intimidate me into supporting their lies or lying for them. You should try it. It’s very liberating.
One more thing; not all gay men are into anal. I doubt many lesbians are at all. However, if you think heterosexual men and women are absolutely not engaging in such activities you are far more naive than I thought you were.
I hope you continue to grace us with your opinions and beliefs. They are fascinating, and confirm with the gravity of a million suns that I must fight the LDS cult with everything I have in order to save people from the lies and insanity they spew.
Mormons as Christians: what we aren’t is part of ‘historical Christianity’ that is, the christianity which started around 300ad with the Nicene Creed.
Finally, there is one point I can agree with John with is that we are generally under the Christianity umbrella but not a part of Protestantism or Catholicism or Greek orthodox. Actually a few points since he gave the correct answers for gays in Mormonism, which doesn’t fit with mormonism, and the gender and genitalia problems.
Wow, I loved the podcast everyone. I am just a teenage girl and I was having a conversation with some of my active Mormon friends the other day and was surprised with how many of them admitted to being uncomfortable with the idea of their husbands “presiding” over them when they get married. It’s not even the fact that they can’t have the priesthood, it’s just that they cannot be equal in their own freaking marriages. The church will definitely have to stop promoting this belief if they want to keep young people in the church.
One reason why I think many Mormons and Mormonism in general are opposed to gay marriage and homosexuality has to do with how they view the afterlife. The general consensus among Mormons is that in the afterlife a man and a woman will join together to become a god and goddess creating spirit children for their own worlds. A great deal has been written on this topic, and so I can understand why most Mormons would think this way.
However, there is a different way to look at the afterlife in Mormonism that also corresponds with Mormon doctrine. First off you have to understand that in Mormonism there is only one person that by right will be God in the life to come – Jesus Christ. Christ, having lived a sinless life is the only child of God worthy to become heir to Elohim. The only way any other person becomes a god in Mormonism is by becoming joint heirs with Christ – they only become a god because Christ shares his glory.
The second thing that you have to understand is that it is apparent that the current leaders of the church do not understand a great deal about the life to come. Case in point – when Gordon B. Hinckley was asked about becoming like god he responded by specifically saying: “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.”
Therefore, it could be successfully argued that the deification ideas philosophized by leaders of the church in no way correspond with the actual fact (if in fact there is an actual fact). The fact of the matter is that there is no official scripture in Mormonism that actually describes how and in what function people will be gods in the life to come. They do say that people become gods, but they do not say in what capacity they are gods.
Mormonism is not strictly monotheistic in the fact that it acknowledges gods without end; however, it maintains its monotheism by saying only one god is in fact worshipped. However, even that one god who is worshipped singularly functions as part of a triumvirate.
Before I left the Mormon Church I no longer believed in the idea that I would function as a singular god in the life to come. I believed that Christ would be the new god of the new worlds and my spirit children would worship him as God. Although this is not in line with the current teachings of the church, there is no reason to believe that this could not in fact be the case. The scriptures make it very clear the Christ is the heir and that those who are saved become joint heirs.
Gay marriage in Mormonism could work in this fashion. Just because someone is not producing spirit children doesn’t mean that they could not contribute to the work and glory of god.
Factory Outlet Online
I was recently introduced to Mormon
Expressions. I’ve listened to several podcasts and there have been
quite a few instances where I wanted to comment because somebody
misinterpreted or misunderstood something about the BoM etc..the list
just got so big that I soon realized I don’t have the time to correct
everything and besides when you get that much incorrect the chances
of my words making a difference are pretty slim. Now don’t get me
wrong, I have respect for all religions and non-religions in that I
respect what ever choice a person makes as long as that choice
doesn’t take away another’s rights. But this one was so bad.
John, you actually said you want
Mormonism to “go away” Seriously? How is that ok to say? I want
Catholicism to just go away or atheism or “fill in the blank?”
Now here is my question, “Do you have
a good alternative?” I’m not a member of the church myself. I am of
independent fundamentalist belief. I’m not very knowledged in current
church practices, but I do have a lot of family who are TBM’s. This
is my position, if somebody is content to follow a man and trust in
the arm of flesh there is almost no way to break that. They have to
come to understanding how wrong that is on their own. Even if a
person with this tendency leaves the church they will still have the
weakness and in my experience they will just continue with the “tell
me what to do” mindset. I maintain that every single person who
seeks to grow and learn will eventually outgrow the church. And as
long as they want to stagnate why not let them? They’re not hurting
anyone. Maybe I just haven’t listened enough to know what alternative
you offer to the LDS church?
One more thing I wanted to address to
Mike, the exhortation in Moroni is absolutely not to ask if the BoM
is true. Here it is…
4And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that
ye would ask.God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these
things are not true;
and if ye shall ask with a sincere
heart, with real
intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto
you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all
Moroni is taking it for granted that when a person reads “these
things” they will automatically believe it. Alma 32 explains how we
plant the seed by believing it and then see if it sprouts etc…maybe
if the missionaries would point that out to potential converts-that
first you believe, then you ask, we would have a lot more
manifestations of the Holy Ghost witnessing the truth. As it is
people are pretty much taught, “don’t believe it until you get an
answer.” Which results in either disbelief(casting it out) or
belief, but only on the level they should have held all along. No
“power of the Holy Ghost” no “manifestation.” Anyway just
wanted to clarify and Mike I think you’re a very brave man!
I tried to highlight the NOT in verse 4 but it didn’t show. It clearly says “if these
things are NOT true;”
Pingback: The Mo Hub | Episode 210: Conversations with Mike Tannehill
Subscribe to the Newsletter for the inside track