I can't find a single claim in there that's actually accurate. Everything in it (down to the video's title) are either blatant lies, horribly spun, and/or placed in false context.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Banned Mormon Cartoon
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
That's an accurate description of what we believe. Because this thread was started to discuss a particular anti-Mormon video, though, I'm going to comment on the last statement that you have quoted as it relates to the video.
"Joseph Smith taught that God was once a man on another planet before being exalted to Godhood." Yes, Joseph Smith did teach this (more or less) in a funeral sermon he gave just a couple of months prior to when he was murdered. The deceased was a man named King Follett. The sermon has come to be known as "The King Follett Discourse." There are a few things people ought to know about this sermon in trying to understand how it fits into LDS theology.
(1) We have today no full, verbatim account of the discourse. Rather, we have a compilation of notes taken by four individuals as the sermon was given. The link I provided is the most accurate account we have of what was actually said. It is almost certainly not a complete record, but is probably quite accurate in what it does say.
(2) I suspect that the first part of the video was based upon the following statement: "First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heaven, is a man like one of you. That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today and you were to see the great God who holds this world in its orbit and upholds all things by his power, you would see him in the image and very form of a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion and image of God. He received instruction from and walked, talked, and conversed with him as one man talks and communes with another."
In the entire sermon, Joseph does not once elaborate on his statement that "God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heaven, is a man like one of you." He makes a single statement and then moves on to speak on other topics. Here's what the video says (at roughly :21 to 1:21):
"Mormonism teaches that trillions of planets scattered throughout the cosmos are ruled by countless gods who once were human like us. They say that long ago, on one of these planets, to an unidentified god and one of his goddess wives, a spirit child named Elohim was conceived. This spirit child was later born to human parents who gave him a physical body. Through obedience to Mormon teaching, and death and resurrection, he proved himself worthy and was elevated to godhood as his father before him. Mormons believe that Elohim is their Heavenly Father, and that he lives with his many goddess wives on a planet near a mysterious star called Kolob. Here the Mormon god and his wives, through endless celestial sex, produced billions of spirit children."
Any one who takes the time to actually read the King Follett Discourse and compare it with the video will see that pretty much everything in the video is an embellishment by its producers. We do not believe that trillions of planets scattered throughout the cosmos are ruled by countless gods who were once human like us. We do believe that God has created "worlds without number." Presumably, if He has created them, He also rules over them. Nothing in the King Follett Discourse makes reference to many "goddess wives." Nowhere does it mention God's conception, birth or any specifics whatsoever about his life on another planet or how He supposedly attained godhood through obedience to Mormon teaching (nor does it even attempt to explain how it would have been possible for Elohim to have been schooled in "Mormon teaching" when "Mormonism" was not founded until 1830). The Bible states that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The Bible deals with the creation forward. It does not deal with anything that was happening prior to "the beginning." The video, however, did get one thing right: "Mormons believe that Elohim is their Heavenly Father." Sadly, though, the remainder of the sentence which contained an astounding eight accurate words in a row, falls far short of being accurate. We believe that, in addition to having a "Father in Heaven," we have a "Mother in Heaven." I personally really like the concept of a divine female and can find nothing in the Bible to suggest that God does not have a female counterpart. To me, it also makes logical sense that He does. The idea of "many goddess wives" is merely a creation of the producer of the video. It has no basis whatsoever in LDS doctrine.
We believe that God resides "in Heaven," and not "on a planet." There are countless instances in the Bible where Jesus mentions our "Father which art in Heaven"; nowhere does He refer to our "Father who art everywhere." With respect to "a mysterious star called Kolob," there is, in “The Pearl of Great Price” (one of the four volumes of scripture in the LDS canon), a mention of "Kolob," which is described as “the star nearest unto the throne of God.” There has never been anything revealed with regards to the location of either Heaven or Kolob and this is something we don't waste our time speculating on. Teachings about Kolob are few. There are not even enough to comprise material for a single sermon, and in my nearly 70 years in the Church, I have yet to hear a sermon on the subject. As a matter of fact, I am 100% sure I could count on one hand the number of times during my lifetime that I have even heard it mentioned in any LDS worship service. There is one hymn in our hymnal about Kolob. We sing it perhaps once every 15 or 20 years. I think all of these things combine to indicate that our belief in a star known to God as Kolob is definitely a very, very minor doctrine, regardless of how it seems to be the focus of so much speculation among people outside our Church.
And that brings us to the bit about "God and his multiple wives" having "produced billions of spirit children... through endless celestial sex." I've already refuted the idea that we believe God has multiple goddess wives. I would say that the vast, vast majority of the world's Christians would concede that, as the Bible clearly states, God is "the father of [our] spirits." Most of them probably believe that God creates a person's spirit either at conception, at birth, or somewhere in between. Unlike most Christians, we believe that God created our spirits prior to when our parents conceived us and that we lived as spirit beings with Him in Heaven prior to our birth. There is, however, no logic in the world that would require the sex act, pregnancy or birth as part of the creation of a spirit, and the silly little illustration showing a bunch of blonde young women playing with little babies is pure hogwash. What went into the creation of our spirits is simply not known to Latter-day Saints. Apparently the producers of this video think we know and teach a whole lot of things we've never ever considered.
(3) The King Follett Discourse has never been canonized. It is not found within any of the writings we refer to as "The Standard Works." There are undoubtedly some Latter-day Saints who believe it. There are undoubtedly some who do not. And it really doesn't matter. It was one sermon given on one occasion, and we do not have any official doctrines concerning the beginnings of God. Gordon B. Hinckley, who was President of the Church for some 13 years (ending with his death in 2008) was asked in an interview by Time Magazine about our belief that God was once a man like us. He replied, "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." He was immediately criticized for "not understanding LDS doctrine." Talk about absurd! If anybody knew LDS doctrine, it was Gordon B. Hinckley. He didn't deny that the teaching had been taught. He simply stated that we don't emphasize it and that we don't know much about it. His statement was 100% accurate.
Last edited:
The idea that believers can achieve equality with Jesus and thus with God, is arguably found in John 17:
20 “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Yes, one, but not equal.
If the father, the son and the holy ghost are a trinity,
then what becomes of those who become "one" with
God also?
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
The Follet discourse, or whatever it's called, calls to attention the mind
and nature of Joseph Smith.
I feel I want to go through all this stuff as it feels silly (ie the Abraham
account lifted from a funeral hymn) but on the other I respect Mormons
and feel that when there's no religion in the world we are all going to be
the poorer for it - perhaps seriously poorer.
But the bible is almost never prolix ─ one of its literary credits is succinctness ─ whereas the Book of Mormon is full of flowery nothings taking up space.
Yes, the narrator states it when talking about the elite (I forget the word for them). There's an upward view of a church façade in the background. Are you familiar with the rules apply to them?
What do you mean 'isn't really'? What does the text say that gives rise to the claim, one that I was already familiar with?
You don't deny the view of women conveyed, that they're the lucky herd of cows for the best bulls? That sounds like authentic Joseph Smith as a matter of history.
I've no idea. If Jesus is the son of God and God is a trinity of three distinct beings each of whom is 100% of God (which is what the doctrine says), then the Son is entirely his own father, and the Ghost is entirely Jesus' father, and the Father is entirely Jesus' father, and the Father has no more right to be called the Father than Jesus or the Ghost has. The RCC and the Anglo/Piscos and no doubt others expressly acknowledge that the doctrine is incoherent, though they use the euphemism 'a mystery in the strict sense'.
But in the NT Jesus repeatedly denies that he's God, never once claims otherwise, and is said by the author of John to have said what I quoted. (My knowledge of the early church is insufficient for me to speculate whether that passage is expressly part of the background to the remarks of the early church Fathers under discussion.)
Last edited:
blü, the video is complete bunk. Literally every sentence has some falsehood about it. It's purpose is to give false information about LDS beliefs and hope the viewers are too stupid to not actually check primary sources themselves.
I'm pleased to hear it.
What about becoming gods and ruling planets after death? Is that part doctrine? Or something like it?
Blatant cartoonization.
Short version of actual LDS beliefs: We are all the Father's children and through Christ's sacrifice, have the potential to be joint-hiers with Christ.
If you're interested in more lengthy explanation: Becoming Like God
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Well that's a subjective statement if I've ever heard one.
I'm honestly confused as to what you mean. I'm guessing that you might be referring to the segment of the video between 6:24 and 7:00. If this is the case, that section of the video makes the following statement: "Although there are thousands of Mormon churches throughout the world, there are only a few dozen Mormon temples. These massive structures play a vital role in the Mormons’ quest for godhood. Mormons must engage in a series of ocultic rituals inside the temple in order to become a candidate for godhood. Only an elite selection of devout Mormons are allowed to enter. To do so the potential Mormon God must adhere to a strict code of ethics including abstinence from tobacco or caffeine-based products, paying a full tithe to the Mormon Church and wearing the magic Mormon underwear 24 hours a day."
I guess the words you were looking for were "elite selection of devout Mormons." There are actually hundreds of thousands in this "elite selection." Yes, I'm familiar with the rules that apply to them, as I have been one of the "elite" for about 48 years now. Any Latter-day Saint who wishes to attend the temple (which is different from "church"), must receive a "temple recommend." He or she does this by having a one-on-one interview with his or her bishop (the local congregational leader), in which a series of questions are asked. Here are the questions:
1. Do you believe in God, the Eternal Father, in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost; and do you have a firm testimony of the restored gospel?
2. Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator; and do you recognize him as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?
3. Do you sustain the other General Authorities and the local authorities of the Church?
4. Do you live the law of chastity?
5. Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?
6. Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?
7. Do you earnestly strive to do your duty in the Church and to obey the rules, laws, and commandments of the gospel?
8. Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?
9. Are you a full-tithe payer?
10. Do you keep the Word of Wisdom?
11. Do you keep all the covenants that you made in the temple, including wearing the authorized garments both day and night? (This question is asked only to people who have already been to the temple at least once. Before going to the temple, no one wears the temple garment.)
12. Has there been any sin or misdeed in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but has not?
13. Do you consider yourself worthy in every way to enter the temple and participate in temple ordinances?
If you have any questions concerning any of these thirteen items, I'd be happy to answer them. I won't, however, even comment on the rest of the paragraph I quoted at this time. This post is too long already. I will, however, say that the idea of there being "occultic rituals" in the temple is nonsense, and we most certainly do not believe our underwear is magic.
The video states, "According to the Book of Mormon, after His resurrection, Jesus came to the Americas to preach to the Indians, who the Mormons believe are really Israelites." You stated, and I quote:
See you're starting out by asking the wrong question. You're asking, "Were the First Americans genetically Israelites?" What you should be asking (and addressing your question to a population geneticist, by the way) is, "Is it possible that a small family from Israel could have arrived in America, to a largely populated continent, and that no genetic evidence of their existence would survive after 2,600 years?" The answer to your question is, "No, the first Americans were not genetically Israelites." The answer to the question I suggested you ask instead is, "Yes, that is indeed absolutely possible.
You're going to have to tell me where the video implies such a thing. Seriously, I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Is this something in the video I flat out missed?
Last edited:
In former times the Book of Mormon was online, and I was intending to take an example at random and show you what I mean, but it seems to have gone. Nothing daunted, let's try this as a random shot: Sixth book, fourth chapter, verses 19-20. I have no idea what that is, but if you post it entire here I'll use it to show you what I'm talking about.
My mistake, sorry. It's actually written on the screen at 7m27s and reads 'Must not read anti-Mormon literature'.
Again, the entire video is bunk, and hoping the reader won't bother to check the facts themselves.
If you're wanting to look something up in the Book of Mormon, help yourself to whatever verse you'd like: Book of Mormon | LDS.org
Noted.
Thanks for that. I see it quotes (or references quotes in) the bible but it only paraphrases the Book of Mormon. Could that be because, like I said, the Book of Mormon is written in a particularly klunky way?
The BoM used to be online but now isn't. Is that for the same reason? Or because of the strange stories about 5th century battles in North America consonant neither with archaeology nor First Nations lore? Or for some other reason?
Skwim
Veteran Member
No.
What gave you that idea?
Link to the entire text: Book of Mormon | LDS.org Feel free to read / download / listen to your heart's content.
With all due respect, you're being very silly here.
My failure to find it with net searches. Thanks for the link.
With all due respect, it's a particularly klunky book.
And you're free to think that.
Shad
Veteran Member
Equality does not equate godhood
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Sorry, but that's not going to work. The sixth book is Omni. It has only one chapter.
The Book of Mormon is still online. Jane.Doe posted one link. Here's another: The Book of Mormon. Jane's link was to The Book of Mormon on the Church's official website. It's probably the online site most Latter-day Saints use. I like the one I posted because I just find it a little easier to navigate and to use the search feature in. But I'll tell you what... You pick out a "klunky" part or something that is "full of nothings, taking up space" and I'll pick something I find beautiful, profound and inspiring.
You know, I really don't know what to say other than that it doesn't matter what's "written on the screen" if what's written on the screen is false. The list of things that scroll up on the screen is apparently the video's producer's opinion of what the temple recommend interview questions are designed to find out and with the exception of a couple of them, they bear little resemblance to what the actual requirements are, as you can see in my Post #51. You can either believe the video or me.
Last edited: