#LDS exaltation doctrine

[mindfulldsliving]

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,…

[ainsi-soit-il]

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.

[nerdygaymormon]

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. 

[paula-of-christ]

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.

[mormonstories]

The Complex History of Polygamy in the Latter-day Saints Movement

Polygamy is perhaps the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' (LDS) most contentious and misunderstood element of its history. Joseph Smith’s secret marriages to Brigham Young’s public practice of polygamy have their origins deeply entwined in the origins of the faith. This blog examines how polygamy began in the Latter-day Saints, Joseph’s wives' lives, and how that practice has persisted in the people of the church to this day.

The Origins of Polygamy in the LDS Church

The practice of polygamy or plural marriage was initiated by Joseph Smith in the early 1840s. He stated that he was given a revelation by God that he was to restore to humanity the practice of having more than one wife from ancient times. This revelation was to turn into Doctrine and Covenants 132 that described celestial marriage and doctrines of eternal families.

For Smith, polygamy was not only a practice of society but was actually a command of God. He married his first plural wife, Fanny Alger, in the mid-1830s but concealed the marriage from public view. Over the next several years, Smith married at least 30 other women, several of whom were married to other husbands at the time of their marriages to him. Most of these marriages were secret ones, and many of Smith’s own close friends remained ignorant of all of his polygamous associations.

Joseph Smith’s Wives: Taking a Closer Examination

The stories of Joseph Smith’s marriages reveal the complexity and challenges of early polygamy. He married girls of all ages and from all walks of life, from teen girls like Helen Mar Kimball, who was only 14 at marriage to Joseph Smith, to older married women like Eliza R. Snow, who was a prominent member of the early church and contributed to shaping it in several significant aspects.

One of the more well-documented cases is that of Joseph’s initial wife, Emma Hale Smith. Emma was not in favor of the practice of polygamy and was not normally aware of Joseph’s other marriages. Her opposition to plural marriage put strain on the Smith family and highlighted how families endured emotionally from the practice.

Brigham Young and Public Practice of Polygamy

After Joseph Smith died in 1844, Brigham Young took over in command of the LDS Church. Young’s reign was more explicit and expansive in practicing polygamy than that of Joseph Smith’s. Young married numerous women himself, several of whom were significantly younger than him. Part of Young’s biography has been controversial on several aspects not only on how young some of these marriages took place but on power dynamics as well.

Young defended polygamy on religious premises as indispensable for exaltation in eternity. He believed that it would increase the population of the church to make it more solid in the Utah Territory. There was opposition to the practice from the United States government that regarded polygamy to run counter to societal culture and federal laws.

The Role of Brian Hales in Modern Research on Polygamy

In recent decades, historian Brian Hales has established himself as one of the foremost scholars of LDS polygamy. Through exhaustive research in Joseph Smith’s Polygamy in three volumes, he gives detailed scrutiny of the practice as well as of its context in history. Joseph Smith’s polygamy was not prompted by sexual desires but by religious beliefs for him, he asserts.

Hales’ work has been praised for balance and comprehensiveness but has not gone unchallenged. Critics have stated that his interpretations underestimate negative consequences of polygamy, such as power imbalances and emotional difficulties that face women in polygyny marriages.

The End of Polygamy and Its Legacy

In 1890, to placate the United States government, LDS Church President Wilford Woodruff signed the Manifesto that officially discontinued the practice of polygamy. Although some members of the Church continued to practice plural marriage in secret, in the end the Church excommunicated members who would not conform.

Today, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially condemns polygamy and distances itself from organizations that practice it. And yet the practice of polygamy still looms large in Church heritage. To many individuals, it is a reminder of how difficult it is to obey commandments from on high. Conclusion: Understanding Stories of Polygamy The history of polygamy in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been that of faith, contention, and perseverance. Through Joseph Smith’s secret marriages to Brigham Young’s public advocacy of the practice, polygamy shaped the young church in far-reaching consequences. Ended now, its impact continues to resonate even to this day within the LDS community as well as in general religious discourse on society. By exploring Joseph Smith’s marriages' stories, Brigham Young’s tenure as a leader, and scholarly research by authors such as Brian Hales, we have more insight than ever before on this complicated chapter in religious American history. Although polygamy is not practiced by the LDS Church these days, their stories remain part of the heritage and identity of the denomination.

[vokriid]

okay I lost a follower so I think the ex-Mormon is gone so it should be safe now but anyway, to elaborate on my incoherent post that TES lore is super Mormon but specifically MK's TES lore is super Mormon:

- easy comparisons like Azura cursing the Dunmer with black skin and the curse of Ham (a now-generally rejected doctrine that was present across Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as a whole but like, really, really present in Mormonism until the 1970s). and the Redguards sure do have Lore.

- 'godhead' which is, again, by itself innocuous enough to not be specifically Mormon, although the Mormons use it with way more frequency than anyone else

- the elven religions that believe they're the descendants of the gods and that mortality/material world is a trap and a mistake by itself is actually pretty Gnostic, but then you throw in that the Enlightened Humans believe mortality/material existence is a blessing and Good Actually and it starts to look a lot like Nicene Christian ideas of Original Sin/the fall of man vs the idea of felix culpa which, again, while not exclusively Mormon, is still very much intertwined with the history and doctrine of Mormonism. also the Altmer have Catholic/Calvinist Guilt which is honestly just fucking funny.

- TES's wildly anti-indigenous lore is, yet again, obviously not something that originates exclusively from historical Mormonism but it sure is an especially prominent thing in Mormon history

- and like most of this is particular to MK's lore? by itself I'm not against his idea of open canon by itself but it does remind me of continuous revelation which is. Yet again. Strongly influential in Mormonism.

- like dude???? HELLO????

- and then there's the whole tribunal, c0da and CHIM shit which makes waaaaay more sense when put next to exaltation as a comparison. and maybe specifically Adam-God doctrine? Less sure about that bc you cannot make me read c0da but in any case the Adam-God doctrine, like the curse of Ham, is currently rejected by the mainstream LDS church (and, unlike the curse of Ham, seems to have been controversial since its beginning) but very much a part of the religion's history.

anyway suffice to say that each of these alone wouldn't mean anything but when put together and wrapped under the little 'godhead' bow, I think MK has some.... Fascinating Ideas TM. though I can't tell if he's sincere, a fundie, or has a fetish for what he considers 'exotic.'

[potentially-lemongrass]

I would LOVE to hear ur hot take about Mary Magdalene 👀👀👀👀

okay so i hope i’m not offending anyone by saying this but in my mind, Jesus and Mary Magdalene were 100% married. Evidence:

 It would have been very weird for a man of Jesus’s age (33) to be unmarried in Jewish culture. “But wait,” you cry. “Jesus was a rebel!!! He did things according to God’s will!!! He could have been single!”

So then we’re getting into LDS doctrine. Jesus was baptized to “fulfill all righteousness” and show us the need to make and keep covenants. As awkward as it is to queer people, we teach that marriage is necessary to be exalted. So Jesus was baptized and then He just... didn’t follow through on this essential commandment to be married??? After His deliberate life to fulfill everything Heavenly Father asked of Him??? Doesn’t make sense to me.

Also, Mary Magdalene was THE first person to see Him after He was resurrected. It’s not the disciples or even His mother. It’s Mary Magdalene who was healed by Him and wept at His cross. 

She is the one crying in the garden after everything and she begs (to whom she thinks is the gardener) please just tell me where you took His body, please let me take care of this, let me just give Him this final dignity.

Everything about this situation feels like a distraught widow who has just had the worst few days of her life and she’s clinging to anything she can do for her husband.

And then her pure joy and amazement to see that it’s Him and he’s alive and He’s smiling and beautiful and safe??? Probably one of the most beautiful and joyous moments in all of scripture.

In John 20:17, Jesus says to her, “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father.” But there’s a Joseph Smith translation that changes everything. In Joseph’s revelation, it reads “Hold me not.”

I rest my case.

I think being married to Jesus would be really amazing (He’s perfect, after all) but it could also be a huge burden and would require a truly incredible and faithful woman and I feel Mary Magdalene could be that woman.

(of course, I’m just speculating here and I could be totally wrong but I don’t see anything in scripture to disprove this. Plus Jesus was asked to live a difficult life and endure much. I love to think that He could have a partner to be there for Him and ensure He wasn’t alone in His struggles.)

[alliluyevas]

Beyond all of the problems with the text of D&C 132 itself, this revelation directly contradicts both the Book of Mormon and earlier revelations from Joseph Smith. I want to make this crystal clear – it is irreconcilable. First, here is the very plain and straightforward text from the Book of Mormon in Jacob 2:

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Now compare to D&C 132:

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.’

You cannot reconcile this – in the Book of Mormon God says they are committing whoredoms and that the practice is abominable, and then in D&C 132 he says “in nothing did they sin” and that those wives and concubines where “given unto him of me… and in none of these things did he sin against me…” In other words, in the Book of Mormon God is directly calling David’s wives abominable, and in the D&C God is saying that not only was it completely legitimate, but that God was the one who gave them to him.

bolding original to the article on LDS Discussions

this has me going out of my MIND. FWIW the Book of Mormon was produced in 1828-1829, and D&C 132 is from 1843.

[examiningmormonism]

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. 

[zionsredemptionradionetwork]

A POLISHED JEWEL, Chapter 21 conclusion of Reincarnation

Pages 192 to 199

Through erring schemes in days that past

The world has gone astray,

Yet saints of God have found at last

The straight and narrow way.

(Times and Seasons 4:335)

Approximately one out of every four Americans believes he will be born again as a baby and not just once but many times. This is also a popular theory in China and India, but it is continually being modified by Christians and Mormons to be a type of modern religious potpourri. They struggle to find bits and pieces of sermons or writings to make it more palatable and appealing. By chopping off something here and adding something there, they have married Christ with Hinduism. Multiple births has become a new religious concoction of doctrine, theory and philosophy.

If being born many times were a true doctrine, it would have been clearly established somewhere in the teachings of the Restoration, for this is the dispensation of the fullness of times. Reincarnation was not some secret doctrine the Saints could not accept, like so many others were, as half the world already believed it. If such a doctrine were true, it seems there should have been at least one complete sermon on the subject.

However, not one discourse can be found in support of the doctrine anywhere in the following records of the Church:

 

[193]  Documentary History of the Church (7 vols.)

Comprehensive History of the Church (6 vols.)

Messages of the First Presidency (6 vols.)

Journal of Discourses (26 vols.)

Millennial Star (150 vols.)

On the contrary, every time that theory came up, it was clearly opposed.

If a person would look carefully at some of the popular views of reincarnation, they would have to admit they are absolutely bizarre. A man might get married to some former animal. A woman could possibly marry a man who once was a woman. A person could come back as a toad or a flower. A dog owner might become a dog for a person who was formerly his dog. The ridiculous scenario goes on and on like some warped plot in a fiction story.

The theory of having multiple lives might give hope for the heathens of Babylon, but it has nothing to offer a true Christian or a Latter-day Saint. This whole plot is nothing but a program for sorrow, suffering and sacrifice in repeated mortalities.

Out of the many visions, manifestations and revelations that were prevalent during the first century of Mormonism, there is not one that clearly supports or advocates the doctrine of multiple mortal births. In recent years an LDS lady by the name of Betty Eadie, had one of these glorious visions and was taken into the spirit world where she saw our pre-mortal life, the beginning of this earth, and even the creation of other worlds. Concerning multiple births into mortality she said:

I also learned that we do not have repeated lives on this earth; when we seem to “remember” a past life, we are actually [194] recalling memories contained in the cells. (Embraced by the Light, Betty J. Eadie, p. 93)

In a personal conversation, the author asked her how she felt about reincarnation after her spiritual experience, and she replied, “It’s a lie! It’s not a correct doctrine.”

It has been stated that Lorin Woolley remarked: “Satan’s imitation of resurrection is reincarnation.” Believing you will have more chances in future rebirths to improve your life will negatively affect your efforts to do your best in this world. It gives a person the false hope that next time he will have a better chance to make the grade. When the prospect of exaltation appears impossible or too far in the distance, a person erroneously relies on “another chance” philosophy, when in reality there is no other chance.

 

*                The first and greatest commandment of God is to love Him with all your might, mind and strength; reincarnation only requires faith in a system.

 

*                The Gospel requires a person to seek forgiveness for sins; the reincarnationist looks upon sin as a mere stepping stone along the path.

 

*                The Gospel teaches obedience to ordinances in order to achieve exaltation; the reincarnationist looks at the repetition of lives as necessary for exaltation.

 

*                The Gospel teaches man to strive for “perfection” in this life; the reincarnationist assumes that many lives are required to attain perfection.

 

*                The Gospel teaches man to learn from every experience, obey every ordinance, and live by every true principle he [195] can because this is his only mortal probation; reincarnation teaches that man will have better luck in the next mortal probation.

One of the dangers of the theory of reincarnation is that it is based on many points of positive and correct evidence, but the result is a wrong conclusion. Just as in a court of law where two criminal lawyers each present many points of evidence to “prove” their case-but one is more wrong and the other is more right. For example, in a Perry Mason program, the defendant’s fingerprints are found at the scene of the crime, he had threatened the deceased person, he was seen in the area, and he had a motive-but he was not the guilty party.

Let’s consider for a minute all of the correct evidence upon which reincarnationists base their beliefs:

 

1. Man had a pre-mortal existence before he came here.

2. Man and women come into this life with a variety of gifts, talents and abilities which were brought with them from a prior existence.

3. Individuals were created unequal at the time of their mortal birth, viz., mental and physical abilities, poverty, riches, environment, race, etc.

4. God is just and will judge all men fairly, regardless of the time they spend in mortality.

5. Mankind have an eternal spirit within them that lives forever.

6. This spirit will again take up a physical body.

7. Mortals will have a chance to correct their weaknesses and repent of wrongdoings after they have passed through this life.

8. There are different probationary states that give mankind a chance to prove themselves and repent.

[196] 9.  The righteous will continue to grow in knowledge and experience and       finally reach a “perfection”, which is a condition similar to the one       that God has achieved.

10. After men become Gods, they return into mortality and take upon themselves the pain and corruptions of a physical body; but they return       to their blissful realm of exaltation when their mission is completed.

These are basic tenets of both reincarnationists and early Mormon leaders. The major difference is that the latter believe it is not necessary for man to continually rotate into mortality over and over again in order for him to reach exaltation.

As a result of coming into this dark and wicked world, we have to struggle against unseeming odds, learn difficult lessons and meet opposition at nearly every turn. But all this experience is to help us and teach us enough so we won’t have to go through it again. Although we each come into this world with very different characteristics, we gain and profit by experience on our individual levels. We are like different kinds of rough stones going through whatever is necessary in mortality in order to become polished jewels. In fact, in a revelation to Joseph Smith, the Lord compared us to stones, or jewels:

I, the Lord, have suffered the affliction to come upon them, wherewith they have been afflicted, in consequence of their transgressions;

Yet I will own them, and they shall be mine in that day when I shall come to make up my jewels. (D & C 101:2-3)

For I, the Lord, rule in the heavens above, and among the armies of the earth; and in the day when I shall make up my jewels, all men shall know what it is that bespeaketh the power of God. (D & C 60:4)

 

[197]  As jewels, the Savior, the prophets, and many good saints can be likened to diamonds. Others might be compared to rubies, emeralds and sapphires, while there are many who compare to those of lesser value, such as agates, garnets, or even sandstone.

If we come to earth as an agate, a lot of polishing will make us beautiful, but it will never make us a diamond. A short, long, or multiple mortality will not change the inherent composition of what we became in the pre-existence. One-third of those hosts of heaven had such poor quality they can never hold together nor take a polish.

The Prophet Joseph Smith also used the analogy of a stone being smoothed and polished as it rolls down the mountain:

I am like a huge, rough stone rolling down from a high mountain; and the only polishing I get is when some corner gets rubbed off by coming in contact with something else, striking with accelerated force against religious bigotry, priest-craft, lawyer-craft, doctor-craft, lying editors, suborned judges and jurors, and the authority of perjured executives, backed by mobs, blasphemers, licentious and corrupt men and women-all hell knocking off a corner here and a corner there. (TPJS, p. 304)

The Savior Himself was compared to a stone:

Christ was the head of the Church, the chief corner stone, the spiritual rock upon which the church was built, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (TPJS, p. 318)

And Peter likened members of the church to stones:

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (I Peter 2:5)

 

[198]  As the scriptures say, there were those who were chosen before they were born because their spirits were composed of certain special substances that pre-determined the value of their jewel here in mortality. As mentioned, mortality provides the polishing, but coming back a hundred times would not change the composition.

A serious mistake of those believing they will continually be born again, is the lack of continuity of their family and friends. They believe they will pass through the veil of death only to be born again somewhere else. They will have lost all contact with their family members and friends. The Prophet Joseph could not conceive of such a scene:

I have a father, brothers, children, and friends who have gone to a world of spirits. They are only absent for a moment. They are in the spirit, and we shall soon meet again. (TPJS, p. 359)

Those following the path of multiple births must expect a much different destiny from those who believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ. When they die, they expect to be shifted off to some other place on the earth to be born again-or even to some other earth. Their friends and family are of no consequence, and perhaps they will never see them again. If they do, they won’t be recognized in some other body.

To a Mormon, the Gospel brings greater and closer filial ties. It provides the connection of one great family, and the joys and rejoicing will be far beyond our expectations, as Brigham Young described on the following two occasions:

When I get through my work here, my body will have the privilege to rest; and I understand where my spirit will go, and who will be my associates in the spirit world.

[199]  We have more friends behind the vail than on this side, and they will hail us more joyfully than you were ever welcomed by your parents and friends in this world; and you will rejoice more when you meet them than you ever rejoiced to see a friend in this life; and then we shall go on from step to step, from rejoicing to rejoicing, and from one intelligence and power to another, our happiness becoming more and more exquisite and sensible as we proceed in the words and power of life. (JD 6:349)

We talk about our trials and troubles here in this life: but suppose that you could see yourselves thousands and millions of years after you have proved faithful to your religion during the few short years in this time, and have obtained eternal salvation and a crown of glory in the presence of God; then look back upon your lives here, and see the losses, crosses, and disappointments, the sorrow arising from disobedient children-from wicked parents who have opposed their children who wished to embrace the truth, the persecutions from city to city, from state to state, being hunted and driven, you would be constrained to exclaim, “But what of all that? Those things were but for a moment, and we are now here. We have been faithful during a few moments in our mortality, and now we enjoy eternal life and glory, with power to progress in all the boundless knowledge and through the countless stages of progression, enjoying the smiles and approbation of our Father and God, and of Jesus Christ, our elder brother.” (JD 7:275)

God, in His mercy and through the atonement of Jesus Christ, has promised these rewards without the necessity of continually being reborn. His plan of salvation is more beautiful and merciful than all the philosophy and wisdom of man.

[mindfulldsliving]

Salvation and Scripture: A Latter-day Saint Approach to Faith, Works, and Modern Revelation

Faith, grace, and works are often hotly debated topics in Christian theology, and Ephesians 2:8–9 and Galatians 1:8–9 have long been central to these conversations. As Latter-day Saints, we affirm salvation through grace but understand that faith and works together reflect true conversion. Critics often claim these verses contradict our beliefs, but with context and revelation, they align…

[73ironath]

THE MESSIAH: WHO IS HE? He is the Son amongst the sons and daughters of our FATHER, has in some dispensation made His voice to be held among His children on earth by introducing him saying: "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.. glorified my name.. Hear Him." Mathew 3:17; 3 Nephi 11:7; Joseph Smith History 1:17. In different occasions, in the FATHER'S own way and time, three records have bore witnesses that he is the Beloved Son." And most importantly, we should "Hear Him." These three records are: 1. The Bible. Stick of Judah 2. The book of Mormon. Stick of Joseph. See Ezekiel 37:16-17 3. The testimony of Joseph Smith Jr . Joseph Smith History 1:17. Download lds gospel library from play store. Click scriptures -pearl of great price. Irrespective of the religious sects we belong, and having a firm believe in the Supreme FATHER, I would need us know that the Messiah as meant in this epistle is JESUS CHRIST. The one who atoned for all men that he might be saved. Secondly, we should "Hear Him." For the FATHER to pronounce the word: "Hear Him.", clearly means that whatsoever we want to do, teach, how to worship and ordinances to be performed for our salvation and exaltation, should be received from him. For all things are committed unto him. Where we are right now, is Jesus Christ recognized? Do we "Hear Him?" If not, my invitation to you is: come unto him and "hear him." The true hearing of him on how to worship and receive ordinances for our salvation must come through the Priesthood power and authority and the Holy Ghost, which must be received by the laying on of hands. Inasmuch as the FATHER need us hear his beloved Son, the Son himself has organized his own Church where we can obtain true doctrines, teachings, ordinances and revelations. This Church he personally spelt out at Far West, Missouri in April 26, 1836 to Joseph Smith. Even "The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-Day Saints." D&C 115:4 As a son or daughter of his, do you mind to confirm from your FATHER that you may have your testimony of this truth? My request from you is simple and without stress and compulsion is DO! and reap whatsoever you desired according to His will. https://www.instagram.com/p/ClSW_ITIvdB/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[nerdygaymormon]

Doctrine and Covenants 128:18 - We cannot be pro-family and anti-LGBTQ+ at same time

This verse is specifically about Baptism for the Dead, and the principles presented for this practice are enlightening. It is a lengthy verse, I'll put the entire verse at the bottom of this post. For now, I want to focus on this section:

"It is sufficient to know, in this case, that the earth will be smitten with a curse unless there is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children, upon some subject or other—and behold what is that subject? It is the baptism for the dead. For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect."

When I think of this from a queer perspective, for all those parents who've kicked out a child because they came out as LGBTQ, how does that action fit with this verse, aren't they are breaking those bonds? I don't know if they are smiting the earth, but they are smiting their family member (smite means "to strike sharply or heavily especially with the hand or an implement held in the hand." This could be a blow so hard that it causes injury or even death).

Many studies have shown that family rejection of LGBTQ children has a negative effect on their mental health as these queer individuals experience higher levels of depression, substance use, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts. Literally, they are causing injury and death to their child.

Another part of the verse says that this welding of people together needs to be "a whole and complete and perfect union." That doesn't sound like there's gaps or missing pieces, there's no exceptions.

"for it is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place,"

Interesting that it says all "glories." I've heard too many General Conference talks where queer people are relegated to lower kingdoms, or glories, of heaven, and the LDS Church is only going to focus on people who can become exalted (which current teaching requires a married couple, a man & a woman, to be sealed in the temple). This verse says all of us, no matter what our future glory may be, are to be bound together.

Everyone talking about being exalted without their LGBTQ+ family members WON’T BE. If same-gender couples and trans people aren’t exalted, NO ONE will be, instead there will be a curse. “For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect.” We cannot be pro-family and anti-LGBTQ+ at same time.

Here's the complete verse:

18 I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands. It is sufficient to know, in this case, that the earth will be smitten with a curse unless there is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children, upon some subject or other—and behold what is that subject? It is the baptism for the dead. For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect. Neither can they nor we be made perfect without those who have died in the gospel also; for it is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time. And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times.

[yamsfreckles-archive]

Omg I hope it’s not too personal to ask about ur experience leaving the Mormon church; I was going to an lds church for a hot second and just oh god no

Thank you so much for your patience with me taking so long to answer this! Moving is stressful af (Also I hope you don’t mind that I’m answering this publicly. I rarely talk about this huge part of my life, but I feel it’s important for others to know before making a decision on joining a religion)

I grew up in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Usually called the LDS Church, or often just the “Mormon Church”). I was “born in the Covenant”, which is just a fancy way of saying my family was already members of the church when I was born. So basically, the mormon church and culture framed my Entire Life from the moment I was born until I officially resigned from the religion a year and a half ago. 

The core principal of mormanism is The Plan of Salvation - basically the idea that we were predestined in our pre-mortal lives to come to Earth and be tested, and if we remain faithful for our whole lives, when we die we will be exalted to the highest degree and have our family with us for all eternity. (Also there are three kingdoms of exaltation, and the highest one has three layers to it, and if you are in the highest layer of the highest kingdom then you actually get to create your own universe [if you’re a man] and become the God of that universe. If you’re a woman then your eternal duty is to bare children for your God-husband and populate that universe and never really be acknowledged lmao). Although that last fact isn’t super well known in the church doctrine. 

The mormon church follows the Bible like most Christian religions, but they also follow a separate book called “The Book of Mormon”, which the church authorities refer to as “the most correct of any book on Earth”. The Book of Mormon is all about how a righteous family left Jerusalem before it was destroyed and built a boat and sailed to the Americas where there was a war and half of the family descendants - the Lamanites - were evil and sought to bring down the kingdom of God, while the other half - the Nephites - were righteous to a fault. The Lamanites ended up getting struck with “blackness” for their sins so that they could be told apart from the white, and therefore good, Nephites. Church authorities in the past have claimed that the Lamanites were the direct ancestors of the Native Americans. Which is hugely racist and disgusting to say, because the book literally said that black skin would show “their abominations”. (But hey this church has been openly racist, sexist, and homophobic since its conception so big surprise there)

Anyway, there is a lot more doctrine and I could spend an eternity writing about it because it gets me so angry, but I feel this answer is already going to be fucking long enough so I’ll just leave those two points. Though if you want to know more about the church’s history with racism or sexism, let me know!

So like I said, I was born into this church and I was baptised at eight years old (the age of accountability) to become an official member of the church. I was completely in love with the church. It gave me purpose and friends. If you live in Utah or Idaho, Mormonism is the primary religion and you can’t go two blocks without seeing a church building.

When I got to high school I attended Seminary every day (basically church school for teens) and my senior year I was actually on the seminary council - a group of kids who got their kicks because they were the most righteous. That was the year I started to doubt, and doubt hard. Everything on the surface of the church seemed good and nice, but there were little things here and there that bothered me. I was told to “doubt my doubts before I doubted my faith” and that if I sought the Lord in sincere prayer, that he would answer me and I would know for sure the church was true. 

And I did pray. I prayed and fasted and did everything I could. I read my scriptures and attended church and did the best I could in my church callings. I never received an answer. And of course that made me feel like I wasn’t trying hard enough. So I doubled my efforts and ended up having a nervous breakdown because I was a doubter and God didn’t want to speak to me because of that. 

Around this same time I was also starting to come to terms with my sexuality which only made me feel worse about the whole thing, because homosexuality is a sin in mormonism, as it is in most major Christian religions.

Finally after a full year of radio silence from God despite my best efforts and humbling myself and truly wanting an answer, I started to research on my own. If God wasn’t going to give me the answers I needed, then I was going to find them for myself. And thanks to my research, I came to the conclusion that none of it was true. Which makes it sound like an easy process, but it took a long time and it emotionally hurt me reading so many contradictory things. Because I had truly loved the church. When I came to the conclusion that it wasn’t true, I honestly felt like a part of me had died.

After my revelation I went away to college and cut myself off from the church. I made some amazing friends who helped me realize how awesome being gay is, and that no religion can determine my worth. But I still felt the loss of the church and ended up in a huge depressive episode that ultimately made me drop out of college. I’m still trying to pick up the pieces of my life and consolidate everything I know with my relationships with my loved ones who still believe. The guilt-trips I got from family and “friends” when I stopped going to church were insane.

And then a new policy was released in November of 2016 stating that if a child of a gay couple wanted to join the church, they could not be baptised until they were 18, and they had to publicly disavow their parents’ lifestyle before they would be allowed to join the church. The church was literally making children turn on their loving parents to join a church. The effects of this policy were horrendous. There was a spike in Utah lgbt teen suicides as a result. I was horrified and disgusted, and that’s when I decided that, even though I hadn’t been to church in years and that I knew it was absolute garbage, I could not have my name tied in any way to this organization. So I drafted a formal resignation letter to send to the church administration building and demanded that they take my name off their membership records. 

I’m still facing repercussions for that decision from family members. To a lot of them, it’s like I’ve died. Because to resign from the church means you cancel all the effects of baptism and any saving ordinance you received while a member. Meaning, I won’t be exalted and I won’t be with my family forever when I die. And even though I know it’s not true, it was such a huge aspect of my life and personality from the day I was born, that I’ve struggled having an identity since I left. Having a spiritual crisis seems like an easy thing on paper, but it is so much more complex than a lot people make it out to be. Right now I don’t have the ability to see a future for myself where I am finally done being affected by mormonism, but every day I get a step closer if that makes sense.

This answer has been long enough, so I didn’t have a chance to touch on the abuses within the church, gaslighting, magical underwear, how the church is actively covering up and excusing sexual assault, how children as young as 12 are subjected to private worthiness interviews where sexually explicit questions may be asked by an adult man, how the first Prophet of the church who “translated” the Book of Mormon was a treasure hunter who had multiple wives and married girls as young as 14 years old, or eternal polygamy (not the same as polyamory which I fully support mind you). Plus much much more. My research was extensive.

But hopefully that gives you a “brief” explanation of my experience escaping from the mormon cult.

[onedayillbeasaint]

The nature of Christ?

I'm having trouble understanding the nature of Christ within Mormonism. Mainstream Christianity agrees that Christ was mysteriously born both God and man. From what I've gathered about LDS doctrine, Christ was born solely man, with a predestined purpose laid out by the Plan of Salvation that we agreed upon and Christ willingly submitted to in the pre-mortal spirit world. He came to the earth with no knowledge of the Plan, but eventually learned of it and came to understand His power and role through Heavenly Father. He was martyred for all of humankind through His Atonement, and because of His Atonement he was Resurrected and later Exalted, becoming divine Himself and like God. A god but not God (Heavenly Father) Himself. Please correct me if I'm wrong here, this is just what I've formed over the past couple of years.

TL;DR From my study of LDS doctrine, I've come to the possibly incorrect conclusion that Jesus Christ was born man and later exalted to become a god Himself, fulfilling our ultimate goal as humanity and becoming an exemplar.

[reincarnatedmormon-blog]

Mormon LDS Doctrines VS The Bible - Are They Similar?

It would seem that if a religion does not challenge Christianity then it is not brought to the forefront as a comparison. However the Mormon doctrine because they are increasingly promoting themselves as being a true Christian religion is causing a great deal of stir among the Christian society. Who are now taking the stance and making a point of showing the obvious differences between these two doctrines. My site Spiritual Mormon

One of the things that really needs to be watched with the Mormon religion is that on the surface it does appear that it is in tune with Christianity but it is when one gets into it further and sees the what ifs and buts that have been attached to the original doctrine. There are many subtle points as well as some that are quite blatant that the Mormons will teach when it comes to their religion. To begin with is a well is that the one they refer to as Gods as opposed to one God. They believe that God was once a man just as we are today and then once he became exalted he became a God and became the leader.

Joseph Smith taught that as the Christians believes that God was in existence for all eternity in Joseph's opinion he was a simple man of flesh and bone just as what we are and this also is carried further by Joseph that Jesus himself was a man.

They support their terminology of gods based on that they believe the Trinity is three separate gods. The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost that these are three individual distinct persons or gods and they deny that the birth of Christ was a miracle or a spiritual birth.They will teach that it was just as natural as the birth of any other child.

Rather than refer to Jesus as the eternal son of God they will refer to him as the spiritual brother of Lucifer. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of the Mormon religion amongst many others.

The Holy Spirit according to a the Mormons is the third God. the Holy Ghost is endowed with the power of the deity and not just a force. There are two substantial meanings when it comes to salvation according to the Mormons. There is a universal resurrection which is what they base the atonement of Christ was for. So this is what they class as general salvation and then the second part of salvation is in the individual salvation which is dealing with the sin of the individual person.