Which direct commandments from the Lord do LDS follow?

[_grindael]

And the Mormon concept of God is NOT confusing? OMG that is a hoot.

THE Mormon CYCLE OF THE GODS

I. God Evolution By One Who Claimed To ‘Know’

It’s hard to tell what Mormons believe or what god they claim to worship. Why? Because they keep changing it. In 1830, when Smith penned the Book of Mormon, he claimed there was only one God, who was called the Father. He taught that this Father God came to earth and was made flesh and became the Son God. This was affirmed and made scripture as “The Lectures On Faith”, when they were included in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants.

At this time the Holy ‘Ghost’ (as Mormons call it – or him, depending) was only the MIND of this God. (Lecture V) Later, the Book of Mormon was changed to try and obscure these concepts, and the Lectures on Faith were discarded as binding scripture, but luckily we have copies of the first printing of the Book of Mormon and the Lectures and can compare the changes.

Then, by 1838 Smith was teaching that there were three gods, (the holy ‘ghost’ got promoted to a god when Smith invented the Book of Abraham) and that the Father and Son were now separate gods. Translating the Bible in 1831 he uses ‘And I God,’ in Genesis, claiming he ‘fixed’ the Bible, and in 1838 when he ‘translated’ the Book of Abraham it says ‘the gods’, (plural) for the same verses.

In Smith’s early years, he called the Father, elohim JEHOVAH, or just Jehovah. Mormons kept that name for the Father until the 1880’s, when they started calling Jesus Jehovah. Brigham Young in 1852 went off the deep end (so they say now), and called the Father Michael, or Adam from the garden of Eden, and claimed he was the father of all the spirits of men, and that it was Adam’s God (father) who was Yahovah, not Jesus, and “Elohim” was the grandfather-god. It was these three gods, Elohim, Yahovah, Michael, that made the earth and were in the Endowment Ceremony. Brigham also claimed that he got this from... Joseph Smith. (Multiple times)

Then, when the church started calling Jesus Jehovah, they called Brigham Young’s teachings about Adam-god false, and started calling the father (Who was Michael according to Young) Elohim with a capital E. They simply made Jesus into Yahovah, and demoted Michael from a god to a pre-existent spirit.

From about 1910 we have them ‘officially’ stating that the father is Elohim, the Son Jehovah, and the Holy ‘Ghost’ a spirit god. Why that part of the new Godhead trio wasn’t on the creation team, is unclear. They, of course never explain how a pre-mortal spirit can become a god, when they teach it is necessary to get endowments in mortality and be married before anyone can even become a god.

II. The Endless Cycle

In 1843, Smith decided to enlighten the world on how their god came to be a god. Smith said that there was a thing called ‘intelligence’ that floats around the cosmos, that can never be created and just apparently was always around, because Smith said intelligence or the ‘light of truth’ (whatever that is) cannot be created or made. (If not, then where did it come from?)

These intelligences were somehow ‘organized’ by a god, (how that first god got to be a god we are never told) or how there got to be a goddess wife for that matter. Anyway, these two gods had spiritual sex or something akin to that, and these intelligences were somehow blended into the spiritual bodies of their "spirit" children.

While this was going on this god creates planets for his goddess wife to put his spirit babies on, so they can become ‘like’ them. How they got from being just “light of truth” to being “light of truth” with physical bodies though, is never explained.

This god then organizes a world by the ‘priesthood’, and again how the first god even got the priesthood has never been told. And they don’t “create” anything, they just “organize”. Again, how did the first “intelligence” get to be a god? Evolution? If that is so, how did the “intelligence” get into the physical form of the first god? Who could have put it there? (I’m thinking Star Trek, The Motion Picture as one scenario).

Anyway, after organizing the matter for the planets, these gods go “down” there, and (according to Brigham Young) eat the food and become mortal again so they can bear their spirit babies as mortal children. But before this, they choose their first born spirit son to be a ‘saviour’ so he can atone for their own disobedience to their own commandment not to eat the food that they created and placed there so they can become mortal. This was all part of a "plan" that has been going on for countless eternities.

Dang it... since after 1905 or so, the church has called that teaching false, or lately “opinion”, or “folklore”… So scratch that. Or not. Whatever you want to believe as a Mormon is cool (just keep it to yourself).

Mormons now teach that the first mortal, who is ALWAYS called Adam for some reason, was just another spirit son, (possibly the 2nd or 3rd born – cause the rebellious one who they call Satan was also probably one of the two, since he was important in the Council of the gods) who they ‘placed’ there so they could command him NOT to fall, but not really mean it, so they could have their first born spirit son die a horrible death to make up for them setting things up so that the first man would actually sin when he was told not to.

And really... why the need for a Council? This had been going on for eternity hadn’t it? Then why have a council every single time you create a world and choose a savior? Are those spirit children not taught anything about the history of the gods? Who the first god was? Anyway… maybe it's a new god thing. Every new god has to try it out with his own spirit babies.

When all the spirit babies are born for all the worlds they have created (and how they know when to stop making spirit babies for each world is not revealed either) the first born spirit son, who was resurrected if he successfully completed his mission to die that horrible death and take on the sins of the world which causes him to bleed out of every pore... kicks rebellious (2nd or 3rd) born’s butt, (for wanting to break the rules and save everyone by force) casts him into ‘outer darkness’ where he languishes and dissolves back into an intelligence (along with all other apostates), to be recycled by some future god someday.

But what if there is no "rebellious" son? Who would they get to be "Satan" and "tempt" all the spirit kiddies on their earth? Would they borrow a "Satan" from another God? Would they advertise for the position? Hire a "Satan"?

Since we don't have any "revelation" about previous Gods and earths, we can only speculate (haha) about why our God has acted the way he did on our earth. Why did he place them in a Garden naked? Is this always done? Do other Gods have different scenarios? Do some get placed in big empty cities and start off with all the technological goodies? Or are they all just put on a planet naked and have to figure it all out? Why was our God so slow to reveal stuff to our Adam and Eve? Why didn't he help them to advance technologically? Did he want them to be hunters/gatherers/farmers for millennia? Why? But anyway...

After this, the first born resurrects all those that obeyed his gospel and got his priesthood, so they too can become gods and do the whole thing over and over again. Now Brigham Young taught that these ‘sons of perdition’ as they are called, would be recycled, but a later prophet refuted this and called that ‘false doctrine’ too.

Now, since all mortals born on earth are ‘spirit babies’ of these gods, they are considered ‘gods in embryo’ only becoming gods if they ‘accept the gospel, live ALL the commandments, and get the priesthood. They must marry as many women as they can, because the more wives they have, the more goddess wives they get, thus making it easier for those gods to make more of those spirit babies, and attain a higher exaltation as more and more gods fall under their authority. They must do all this by the "power of the priesthood" or it isn't "binding" in eternity. They must write it all down here and keep records, or else it won't be recognized by the gods. They must "seal" people together, for if you don't, then there isn't any "chain" of power from the first person to the last and somehow this has a devastating effect on resurrected beings in eternity. God also gives special chosen children his "sealing power" so they can get around all the fuss and bother and make them gods in advance and there is nothing that the gods can do about it because the gods said so. This is making their "calling and election" SURE.

Also, all the spirit kiddies that come to an earth must go through a "temple" and learn about the "plan" and get special signs and tokens and handshakes or they won't be able to get into "heaven". They will be looked at as enemies by the "angels" that "guard the gates" and be denied entrance. Why this is necessary when the gods are all powerful and can read everyone's mind is not revealed.

Since the ‘prophet’ Smith says that intelligence can’t be created or made, one wonders if someday it might run out, and the spirit babies that these gods have will be born brain dead, (since the spirit babies are composed of some component of ‘intelligence’) or perhaps they will be born intelligence challenged, thus ending the ‘eternal round’ of billions upon billions of gods. There can only be so many apostates that get recycled into intelligences, and it’s only logical that someday, the supply will run out. (since intelligence can’t be created or made, there has to be a limited supply, right?)

And where are these “intelligences”? Do they just float about the cosmos like in some kind of Star Trek episode? How does the “intelligence” get into the spirit babies? How did the first “intelligence” get to be more intelligent than the rest? Did he go to intelligence school? I mean the questions are just endless, and none of the answers make any sense.

But that is the Mormon "cycle of the gods". Are you ready to become a god (be "exalted")?

[_grindael]

Hinckley absolutely prefers his Mormon God over the Christian God. That is obvious. To say he doesn't is ignorant and silly. Apologist tripe, something that Mental excels at. Hinckley was the consummate LIAR. He lied about the King Follet Discourse and that they didn't really teach God was a man. He lied as often as he could get away with it. That is what they do. His testimony is worthless, because he has been caught in many lies. How can one believe he had encounters with the Divine, when he constantly lied about everything else. But Mental will throw all of that aside because he too, PREFERS the Mormon God. And since Hinckley never spoke about seeing God, his personal witness is just a "feeling". Not a great thing to base your faith on. We do know his breath and depth of his dealings with the Divine, there isn't any, because he never told about any. He was supposed to, as an "apostle" but he didn't. We do know because of the Hoffman affair that he had absolutely no Mormon "Power of Discernment", so why should we believe he was ever in touch with any Deity? We don't have to take Hinckley's comments at face value, because he was a liar and a deceiver and got taken by a con artist.

[_sock puppet]

Mcjathan's shared quote is pretty damning, MG. Trying to claim it's taken out of context doesn't address what it is saying. Mainly, that what Joseph Smith claimed to have seen makes sense to President Hinckley while the creeds of Christianity don't. He misses completely what mcjathan caught - that he is trading one person's word for anothers which he prefers.

The fact he prefaces his talk with the statement, "of the things of which I know, I speak to you this morning" doesn't justify any other idea than his and your knowledge is of the narrative Joseph Smith claimed to have experienced. It's not a way of saying he knows the nature of the Godhead from direct, personal experience with God and Jesus.

It's a pretty astounding comment that I'm surprised hasn't been someone's sig line before.

It always sounds pompous and pretentious when the speaker, like Hinckley, appeals to himself as the authority.

[_Lemmie]

President Hinckley wrote:

How deeply grateful I am that we of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith...

I think we have to take Pres. Hinckley's comments for what they are, not for what we think they should/ought to include.

Notwithstanding the mangling of the written language mental imposes with his lazy slash use, I would agree with this general concept--let's take his words for what they are. The lds church announces it does not rely on man-made statements, and then it announces it does rely upon man-made statements.

[_mentalgymnast]

Mcjathan's shared quote is pretty damning, MG. Trying to claim it's taken out of context doesn't address what it is saying. Mainly, that what Joseph Smith claimed to have seen makes sense to President Hinckley while the creeds of Christianity don't. He misses completely what mcjathan caught - that he is trading one person's word for anothers which he prefers.

The fact he prefaces his talk with the statement, "of the things of which I know, I speak to you this morning" doesn't justify any other idea than his and your knowledge is of the narrative Joseph Smith claimed to have experienced. It's not a way of saying he knows the nature of the Godhead from direct, personal experience with God and Jesus.

It's a pretty astounding comment that I'm surprised hasn't been someone's sig line before.

It always sounds pompous and pretentious when the speaker, like Hinckley, appeals to himself as the authority.

Did it ALWAYS sound that way to you?

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

Mcjathan's shared quote is pretty damning, MG. Trying to claim it's taken out of context doesn't address what it is saying. Mainly, that what Joseph Smith claimed to have seen makes sense to President Hinckley while the creeds of Christianity don't. He misses completely what mcjathan caught - that he is trading one person's word for anothers which he prefers.

The fact he prefaces his talk with the statement, "of the things of which I know, I speak to you this morning" doesn't justify any other idea than his and your knowledge is of the narrative Joseph Smith claimed to have experienced. It's not a way of saying he knows the nature of the Godhead from direct, personal experience with God and Jesus.

It's a pretty astounding comment that I'm surprised hasn't been someone's sig line before.

It always sounds pompous and pretentious when the speaker, like Hinckley, appeals to himself as the authority.

Did it ALWAYS sound that way to you?

Regards,
MG

I think we have to take [sockpuppet's] comments for what they are, not for what [I] think they should/ought to include.

[_honorentheos]

I think we have to take [sockpuppet's] comments for what they are, not for what [I] think they should/ought to include.

Totally high fiving that crap.

[_Goya]

It always sounds pompous and pretentious when the speaker, like Hinckley, appeals to himself as the authority.

Did it ALWAYS sound that way to you?

Regards,
MG

I'm not speaking for sock, but yes, for me, it has always sounded pompous and pretentious when a speaker appeals to himself as the authority.

[_sock puppet]

It always sounds pompous and pretentious when the speaker, like Hinckley, appeals to himself as the authority.

Did it ALWAYS sound that way to you?

Regards,
MG

I'm not speaking for sock, but yes, for me, it has always sounded pompous and pretentious when a speaker appeals to himself as the authority.

Me too. Well said, for you and for me.