FAIR Mormon Outreach

[Anonymous]

Shawn, again, what wayfarer is saying is that we have to let go of the apostate descriptions of God that are enshrined in “creeds” – and Joseph preached against creeds passionately and unceasingly. In fact, creedalism was the central complaint of the First Vision condemnation of the religions of Joseph’s day – and wayfarer uses “we” in the generic sense in his comments. It isn’t pointed only or primarily at all of us here; it is a statement about all of “us” (the children of God”) and how even “we” Mormons, collectively in our move toward tight correlation, have moved toward limiting God into the cage of creedalism.

That is perfectly consistent with what Joseph taught, so, yes, it’s appropriate here – and it would be even if I didn’t agree with wayfarer, since it’s not a targeted insult. It is a statement of belief, phrased generically.

As to the issue of “wrong paradigms”, wayfarer very clearly and carefully articulated exactly what he meant by that. If you disagree, explain why – explain what it is with which you disagree. If we (all of us, including wayfarer) can have a civil discussion about those disagreements, we all can learn from each other. All I can say is that perhaps wayfarer should have said “I believe the following is a wrong paradigm” – but that is exactly what he meant, so let’s go from there and discuss the points he laid out, again, as long as we can do so civilly.

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

Wayfarer, it is insulting when you tell us we must “abandon the false god of the creeds.” I don’t see how you think Joseph Smith supports your view of god, no matter how long and complex your explanations are. You say the truth needs no defense, so why you do you continually preach your views in the spirit of winning converts?

Shawn wrote:

Ray, it went beyond sharing perspective because he gives a call to action – “We must eventually abandon the false god of the creeds.” He also clearly said I have adopted “wrong paradigms.”

heavens, shawn, you took exception to probably the most orthodox, believing post I have written here. it was not directed at you, that you have false paradigms. nowhere did i say or imply, “shawn, you have adopted the wrong paradigms.” I believe i was sharing with the “we” who struggle or disagree with literalism, myself included. since you don’t struggle with literalism, it is not directed at you.

i don’t blame you for reacting, though…I, too, react on occasion to what apologists say about those of us trying to find a faithful Middle Way.

the god of the creeds is completely outside of nature, a reflection of the platonic ideal, who creates order, this world, and all things in it, from nothing (ex nihilo), according to his will and pleasure. he dwells within us because he is incorporeal, and shares a common “god substance” (homoousion) that is one in substance in three persons.

LDS reject the creeds because that definition is wrong, as is the resultant conclusion: that whatever god decrees in scripture is the word of god, infallible and inerrant, and cannot be the work of man. man, to the creeds and confessions of christianity, is totally depraved, and wholly and completely “not god” and will always remain a distinct being than god.

when we believe that whatever god creates or reveals is “from nothing” (ex nihilo), that human failings are not part of the revelatory process, then we must accept that the book of mormon is flawless, and that all of its claims are true, because the god of the creeds would have it no other way. After all, creedal religions typically hold the bible to be the clear, infallible, and inerrant word of god, reflective of the mind of god and not fallen man.

do we believe in such a being? I thought LDS taught that revelation is line upon line, precept upon precept, expressed through the mind and heart of humans, in their own language, according to their own understanding. I thought LDS taught that god organized from existing materials to create this world, hence could organize existing materials within the mind and heart of joseph smith to reveal his will. this is all i am saying: that when we understand that LDS doctrine teaches that god works through mankind suject to natural law and with the constructs of free agency, we do not need to think that the book of mormon is literally exactly what it claims to be.

shawn, from the first posts where you have responded to me on staylds, you have consistently disparaged my posts and sought to categorize my point of view outside of and offensive to your true beliefs. i am ok with that, you are entitled to your opinion as am I. In one of our very first exchanges, you insisted that god is in no way a man, and that man is entirely “other” to god. if that works for you, please, don’t change. It doesn’t work for me, as i see god as an exalted human who deeply and personally relates to me, and reveals enlightenment to and through me in my mind and heart in ways this failing human barely understands. Further, you have misinterpreted what i mean by “god within” in a number of ways, and i am not interested in correcting your mistaken notions nor converting anyone. if you look at the statement you found offensive:

wayfarer wrote:

We must eventually abandon the false god of the creeds and embrace that god, however we understand him, works through the natural man, via natural processes, subject to human limitations of that transmission. Then, and only then, can we reconcile that a deeply flawed human being, clearly drawing from the mindset of the 19th century, with a story arc coming from extant sources — was and is a divine revelation.

But I go a step further.

I think it’s extremely important to understand that “the God Within” is not me. It is not my consciousness, my thoughts, or my will.

i stand completely by this statement as being in complete harmony with the gospel and teachings of Joseph Smith and the church today. if you had read it without your apriori negative confirmation bias against anything i write, you might have observed that i left open how we understand god to be — only that the creedal definition insists on an infallibility… something that until 1980, LDS did not believe.

as you see from the above, i expressedly laid out that the god within is not me. that should have corrected your misunderstanding, but i suspect you stopped reading the moment you found something to which you could object. had you read to the end of the post, you might have seen where i said perhaps none of us can set aside our need for the comfort of believing certain things.

might i suggest that if you find something offensive in what i write, then just ignore me. i don’t mean to offend, preach, or convert. i am only here to express what has worked for me, and sharing helps me clarify my thinking.

[Anonymous]

I will explain why I got upset, and I appreciate the patience of anyone following this. When I read “the false god of the creeds” in this setting, I believe it refers to the current LDS teachings regarding Heavenly Father. I embrace these teachings so I get upset when I read that we must abandon them. Keep reading and I will show you how I come to that conclusion.

wayfarer wrote:

my opinion is this: as mature saints, we need to stop mythologizing our founders and leaders. we need to stop avoiding the evidence that the book of mormon is nonhistorical, and embrace the stunningly unintuitive conclusion that a completely weak and defective being, one who had a penchant for storytelling and treasure-seeking cons, broought forth a singularly divine work and a wonder…

when we face, full-on, the idea that a fraudulent act brought forth a divine work, then we must abandon the platonic ideal as our definition of god — the single most pernicious part of the judeo-christian concept of god, and we immediately have to come to a new paradigm, one embodied by the seven principles above. christianity and correlated mormonism have the wrong paradigm, based upon an impossible, platonic and creedal definition of god and reality…

Then:

Shawn wrote:

While not crucial, the historicity of the Book of Mormon is important to me and I believe it matters to a lot of people. It has been taught as a historical account from the beginning and it would be quite disappointing if I were somehow convinced it isn’t.

I also don’t see good evidence against the Book of Mormon being historical…

I think the plates are real and are what Joseph purported…I believe they are part of the story because they are real.

Then:

wayfarer wrote:

We must eventually abandon the false god of the creeds and embrace that god however we understand him works through the natural man, via natural processes, subject to human limitations of that transmission. Then, and only then, can we reconcile that a deeply flawed human being, clearly drawing from the mindset of the 19th century, with a story arc coming from extant sources — was and is a divine revelation.

I have not seen anyone on this site subscribe to the Nicene Creed – at least the parts generally understood to be false by Mormons, such as “Jesus Christ…being of one substance with the Father.” The Athanasian Creed doesn’t get much fanfare among Mormons: “Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith” and “we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence.”

Since we are not following the god of the Nicene and Athansian Creeds, I wonder what false god we must abandon. A blog post of Wayfarer’s includes:

Quote:

I could argue that the Standard Definition of God, that is of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, and all-good God is a logically impossible concept in the presence of evil. Free agency of one person does not justify the senseless suffering of others…

In my impression, historically, the understanding and doctrines of an external god emerged from our conscious attempts to explain that which we do not understand…

I believe it is time for us to set aside the focus on the speculatively-defined god of our primitive religions and come to a full understanding of our true eternal companion: our god within…

When we come to embrace the truth of our god within, we lose a lot of misconceptions about god. our god within cannot restore a limb, but s/he can encourage our bodily systems to step up and fight disease, and in some cases heal us in a seeming miraculous way. our god within cannot change another person, but can perceive feelings and concerns of another person so that we can better serve them. our god within cannot change a natural disaster, but can motivate us to be prepared. our god within is not just a “man”, but is also both man and woman, father and mother, husband and wife, parent and child, and our true friend…that we mostly ignore.

On a post here he wrote:

Quote:

It is logically impossible to have an all knowing, all good, all powerful, and all present god and have disasters occur to people outside the context of their own free will. you can believe that all you want, but it isn’t inherent in what Joseph Smith said or taught. In fact, we LDS have a more limited view of god’s power, specifically that he is a physically present being, making his ‘presence everywhere’ not possible, and as well, he does not intervene in the free will of others, and of random acts of nature, as they affect YOU. If god was all powerful and all knowing, then he would be a monster to allow such evil to exist. There are many more problems with the Theodicy, but simply put, it’s a logical impossibility. LDS theology has one of the best answers to it, in terms of god’s limited power.

I responded:

Quote:

I believe God is omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omnipresent, and I would like to explain why. This is not eloquent or powerful in convincing others, but I hope it makes sense to some.

Omniscience

God has all knowledge that is possible to possess. There is nothing that that He doesn’t know.

Quote:

…It is not because the Lord is ignorant of law and truth that he is able to progress, but because of his knowledge and wisdom. The Lord is constantly using his knowledge in his work. And his great work is in bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. By the creation of worlds and peopling them, by building and extending, he progresses, but not because the fulness of truth is not understood by him (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, Ch. 1).

Omnipotence

God has all power that is possible to possess. There is no being in the universe with more power. However, I suppose He can do only things that agree with His principles (He can’t lie, for example). Maybe God does not have the power to take away a person’s agency due to some universal, eternal law, or it is just against His principles, but he still has all power that is possible to possess.

Omnibenevolence

This is the difficult one. It helps me to consider that I knew what I was getting myself into when I was preparing to come to earth. I can’t think of any great similes, but maybe I have some decent ones. No model or comparison is perfect, and mine are no exceptions…

Essentially, moral goodness requires agency. How would it be if a man were stopped mid-swing by a supernatural force as he attempted to harm another? It seems that would affect the need for faith.

It also helps for me to consider the perspective of humanity if different from God’s. Suffering in life seems to go on for too long, but the duration of life is really a small dot on the continuum of time. While we are rightfully disheartened when children are killed, God sees them suffer for a small moment and then receives them into His presence in glory and everlasting joy. Perfect justice and mercy will eventually be meted to everyone.

Omnipresence

Please excuse me for quoting from Mormon Doctrine (1966 version). While not everything in the book is accurate, a lot of it is. I just think this explains it well:

Quote:

God is omnipresent (Lectures on Faith, p. 9); he is the Immanent God, the indwelling Presence in all immensity. “In him we live, and move, and have our being.” (Acts 17:28.) “He is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever.” (D. & C. 88:41.)

It is by reference to this true doctrine of omnipresence that the sectarian world attempts to justify its false creeds which describe Deity as a vague, ethereal, immaterial essence which fills the immensity of space and is everywhere and nowhere in particular present. God himself, of course, is a personal Being in whose image man is created. (Gen. 1:26; 5:1; Moses 2:26; 6:9), but he is also an immanent Being, meaning that the light of Christ shines forth from him to fill all space. This “light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space – The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.” (D. & C. 88:12-13.)

And then:

wayfarer wrote:

hmmm. no, i don’t agree that god is omni-anything. Unfortunately, neoplatonism is alive and well in both christanity and mormonism.

So Wayfarer wrote in this thread “when we face, full-on, the idea that a fraudulent act brought forth a divine work, then we must abandon the platonic ideal as our definition of god — the single most pernicious part of the judeo-christian concept of god” and previously wrote “i don’t agree that god is omni-anything. Unfortunately, neoplatonism is alive and well in both christanity and mormonism.” When he refers to the platonic ideal or neoplatonism in regards to god, it is apparent that he includes omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. As well, “the god within” almost certainly doesn’t have a body of flesh and bones.

Here’s the first paragraph of the church’s page “God the Father”:

Quote:

God the Father is the Supreme Being in whom we believe and whom we worship. He is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things. He is perfect, has all power, and knows all things. He “has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (D&C 130:22).

Since the Nicene and Athansian Creeds have not been the subjects of this thread at all (the god of those creeds is not embraced here, so it wouldn’t make sense to say anyone should abandon it), and Wayfarer openly rejects the LDS definition of god, then it’s not a stretch for me to believe he is saying we must abandon the false god of the Mormon creed. In a broad sense, a creed can be a simple statement of belief or article of faith, after all.

I have not read stuff posted after what I said last night, so I will need to respond to those later.

[Anonymous]

shawn wrote:

Wayfarer openly rejects the LDS definition of god, then it’s not a stretch for me to believe he is saying we must abandon the false god of the Mormon creed. In a broad sense, a creed can be a simple statement of belief or article of faith, after all.

shawn, why are you doing this? you are completely wrong about what i believe. I do not reject the LDS definition of God in the least, but i do reject the creedal, omniwhatever overlay some LDS apply to it. i have never, ever denied the LDS definition of God the Father being an exalted man. never. and in accepting the actual definition of god being a corporeal exalted man, the creedal omniwhatever is impossible in my understanding of LDS scripture and doctrine. Further you don’t seem to understand the God Within, as i have defined on my blog. Have you considered that “the God Within” is the Holy Ghost? that is how i see it.

i really get tired of people misconstruing what i believe and then accusing me of rejecting LDS beliefs.

Please stop mischaracterizing my posts and beliefs.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

shawn wrote:

Wayfarer openly rejects the LDS definition of god, then it’s not a stretch for me to believe he is saying we must abandon the false god of the Mormon creed. In a broad sense, a creed can be a simple statement of belief or article of faith, after all.

shawn, why are you doing this? you are completely wrong about what i believe. I do not reject the LDS definition of God in the least, but i do reject the creedal, omniwhatever overlay some LDS apply to it. i have never, ever denied the LDS definition of God the Father being an exalted man. never. and in accepting the actual definition of god being a corporeal exalted man, the creedal omniwhatever is impossible in my understanding of LDS scripture and doctrine. Further you don’t seem to understand the God Within, as i have defined on my blog. Have you considered that “the God Within” is the Holy Ghost? that is how i see it.

i really get tired of people misconstruing what i believe and then accusing me of rejecting LDS beliefs.

Please stop mischaracterizing my posts and beliefs.

A summary of the LDS definition of God is:

Quote:

God the Father is the Supreme Being in whom we believe and whom we worship. He is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things. He is perfect, has all power, and knows all things. He “has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s.”

Omnipotence, omniscience, and other omnis are part of the official LDS definition – they are not merely “creedal, omniwhatever overlay some LDS apply to it.” You have said “It is logically impossible to have an all knowing, all good, all powerful, and all present god…” and “I do not believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and all-present god who was once man and is now unchangeably god.”

You have stated “The Mind Within is the Only God With Which We Have to Do.” If that refers to the Holy Ghost, then God the Father (the corporeal exalted man) is still left out of the picture.

I can only say that I am baffled if you really think you “do not reject the LDS definition of God in the least.”

I am doing this because I get defensive when my beliefs are attacked. And yes, you do attack them. The attacks are usually passive and surrounded by long explanations so they are easy to miss. I believe God is all-powerful and all-knowing. You have said “If god was all powerful and all knowing, then he would be a monster to allow such evil to exist.” I once wrote:

Quote:

I suppose it can be correct that “all perception of god happens within our own minds,” since all of our senses are registered in the mind, though the influence of the Holy Ghost can be felt in my entire being. This does not mean that God is merely in or around my mind. The idea that “the understanding and doctrines of an external god emerged from our conscious attempts to explain that which we do not understand” just doesn’t hit home for me.

You responded:

Quote:

fair enough. It doesn’t hit home for you. All truth is given to us — revealed as it were — line upon line and precept upon precept. And, that revelation occurs within the mind and heart. This is scriptural, and it is all I am saying. What we understand of god has to necessarily emerge in the constructs of our own understanding. And when we don’t understand, our mind, hating a vacuum, fills in the blanks — we make crap up.

I can’t say for sure that you were telling me I was making crap up or that I believe in crap others made up, but it’s not a stretch to read it that way. There are more like that. You are quite critical of many orthodox LDS views. Though my testimony has been rocked, I have retained or regained many of those views. When I disagree with something and think it’s important, I will respond. I know I am often not good at doing that in a tactful and respectful manner and I am sorry for that.

When you state your beliefs without applying them to others, it is far easier to not be bothered. I see you applying your beliefs to others with statements like “we must” do something or “you can’t know that.” I am also bothered when you say, explicitly or implicitly, that Joseph Smith agrees or would agree you on some topics. Sure, you totally agree on many things, but I see big differences in others.

I will write more later.

[Anonymous]

shawn, for some reason, you have jumped to being defensive, to the point of asking the moderator to step in and censure what i say.

i am sorry you feel the need to do this. I differ from your interpretations, both of LDS doctrine, as well as your understanding of what I say. Differing is not attacking.

Shawn wrote:

A summary of the LDS definition of God is:

Quote:

God the Father is the Supreme Being in whom we believe and whom we worship. He is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things. He is perfect, has all power, and knows all things. He “has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s.”

Omnipotence, omniscience, and other omnis are part of the official LDS definition – they are not merely “creedal, omniwhatever overlay some LDS apply to it.”

uh, yes, omnipresence of god the father is directly in conflict with scripture, and many LDS theologians recognized a limited omnipotence of god: that god does not remove free will.

you are claiming is that there is one definition of god in LDS literature, when I believe that there is a broader spectrum. This is but one difference in how we look at things. When I say we ‘must’ set aside the creedal definitions of God, which, by virtue of the origin of mormonism within mainstream protestantism, were often stated as beliefs by early church leaders and later restated as part of correlation, I am speaking to those who share the view that those definitions no longer work. If you have returned to true belief in some form, my messages simply don’t apply to you. If, on the other hand, someone is rejecting mormonism because of the illogic of the creedal definitions, I offer an alternative: that within the framework of mormonism is a broad enough spectrum of what god is, that we don’t need to adhere to the illogic of the creedal god. When we set aside the creedal god, then a host of other possibilities are available to us.

My message is to those who reject mormonism entirely because it seems to adhere to dogma they no longer can accept. My alternative is to embrace a Middle Way, one which finds in Mormonism an acceptable definition of god, without the requirement to believe standard dogma. Not only have I found a definition of God I can fully subscribe to, I believe that many early saints also subscribed to it, and I find substantial support for my beliefs in Mormonism. That’s why I stay LDS, because the truth, as I understand it is there, but not, for me, in the unworkable God of the creeds.

shawn wrote:

You have said “It is logically impossible to have an all knowing, all good, all powerful, and all present god…” and “I do not believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and all-present god who was once man and is now unchangeably god.”

yes, i said that, and continue to do so. there are some serious logical impossibilities in those statements:

– God cannot be unchangeable and have changed from man to god: its a direct contradiction in terms.

– God cannot be corporeal in time and space and yet be everywhere. Scripture confirms that in D&C 130:3, 22.

– God cannot be simultaneously all good, all knowing, and all powerful and allow evil to exist. something has to go: In LDS theology, God is limited in power so as to not violate free will (Abraham, the Plan of Salvation), and God is limited in power by virtue of being subject to laws of the kingdom within which he operates (Section 88).

why did i have these conversations with you originally? you were suffering a faith crisis, and in my impression at the time, were holding onto extensions beyond LDS belief (e.g. omnipresence of god) that i found to be harmful to faith. i was trying to share my experience, strength, and hope. once i saw that you don’t see it the way i do, i dropped the discussion: you obviously are satisfied with your beliefs.

Have you noticed that I no longer engage with you on these topics? I know we disagree, and i choose not to change your beliefs. you came on to this thread to attack my beliefs, to call my beliefs as offensive, then you called for the moderators to censure my beliefs in the way i express them.

shawn wrote:

You have stated “The Mind Within is the Only God With Which We Have to Do.” If that refers to the Holy Ghost, then God the Father (the corporeal exalted man) is still left out of the picture.

I wish you would quote the context and rest of the relevant material, instead of jumping on one thing. i said something to the effect of: “regardless of our understanding of the gods “out there”, the last six inches of our interface to the divine happens within our minds.” because our god within — as i stated explicitly, that this god within is “not me” — because our god within explicitly shares our memories and knows how to talk with us, this god within is the interface to the gods outside of us. if you read the material without seeking offense, you would have had a better understanding.

shawn wrote:

I can only say that I am baffled if you really think you “do not reject the LDS definition of God in the least.”

I obviously cannot help your state of being baffled. my suggestion is that rather than seeking offense, seek to find common ground, or simply ignore me.

shawn wrote:

I am doing this because I get defensive when my beliefs are attacked. And yes, you do attack them. The attacks are usually passive and surrounded by long explanations so they are easy to miss.

I cannot help your emotional response to my attempt at sharing my way of looking at things. i was only trying to help, by sharing what i honestly believe. you believe differently. enjoy your beliefs – be strong in them. My message and stories are not intended for you.

shawn wrote:

I believe God is all-powerful and all-knowing. You have said “If god was all powerful and all knowing, then he would be a monster to allow such evil to exist.” I once wrote:

Quote:

I suppose it can be correct that “all perception of god happens within our own minds,” since all of our senses are registered in the mind, though the influence of the Holy Ghost can be felt in my entire being. This does not mean that God is merely in or around my mind. The idea that “the understanding and doctrines of an external god emerged from our conscious attempts to explain that which we do not understand” just doesn’t hit home for me.

You responded:

Quote:

fair enough. It doesn’t hit home for you. All truth is given to us — revealed as it were — line upon line and precept upon precept. And, that revelation occurs within the mind and heart. This is scriptural, and it is all I am saying. What we understand of god has to necessarily emerge in the constructs of our own understanding. And when we don’t understand, our mind, hating a vacuum, fills in the blanks — we make crap up.

I can’t say for sure that you were telling me I was making crap up or that I believe in crap others made up, but it’s not a stretch to read it that way.

i stand by what i said — i was trying to help, never attack you. I wrote that under the mistaken notion that we shared common views — we do not. When I said is that we make crap up, means that it is human nature to do so. Our minds crave certainty, thus there is a danger that our strongly held beliefs are fictions. This is a well known observation in the field of cognitive science. For more information on this, please read, “On Being Certain“, by Robert Burton.

shawn wrote:

There are more like that. You are quite critical of many orthodox LDS views.

“orthodox LDS views”? Joseph Smith would roll in his grave to hear that. i have never claimed to be orthodox: in an earlier version of the endowment, the god of orthodoxy — especially the omnipresent concept, was specifically rejected, along with “the orthodox religion”. Well should I be critical of “orthodoxy” – it doesn’t belong in the restored church, and is the cause of much disaffection. Joseph Smith explicitly rejected orthodoxy. Why do you condemn me for the same? Note the following:

Joseph Smith wrote:

The most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived its members the privilege of believing anything not contained therein. Latter Day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles existing, as they are made manifest from time to time.

Joseph Smith, History of the Church, v5 p215

Bear in mind that Joseph revealed this less than a year prior to his death, and he repeated this sentiment in multiple instances during that year. His understanding of god and the gospel was changing — improving — being more imbued with further light and knowledge.

In Lecture 5 of the Lectures on Faith, Joseph proposes that God the Father is a personage of Spirit, Jesus Christ a personage of “Tabernacle”, and the Holy Ghost is not a personage at all, but rather, simply the common mind of God the Father and Jesus Christ.

Joseph Smith, Lectures on Faith 5:2 wrote:

There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things, by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible, whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space. They are the Father and the Son — the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness, the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man…he being the Only-Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fullness of the glory of the Father, possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one .

This is a modified trinitarian formulation, well within the bounds of the creedal god. It is not what LDS typically believe. It is clear from this that Joseph’s earlier understanding of the nature of God was far more trinitarian than later on. God in the original Lectures on Faith is a Spirit, incorporeal, omni-whatever, and unchanging from everlasting to everlasting. Typical, creedal dogma. By the end of his life, Joseph believed otherwise:

Joseph Smith, In D&C 130:22 wrote:

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.”

Note that this significantly differs from and contradicts the Lectures on Faith formulation of God: God moves from a “Personage of Spirit” to a body of tangible flesh and bones — exactly like the Son, and now the Holy Ghost is a “Personage of Spirit” — same language, different person of the godhead.

Then, in King Follett, Joseph reveals that God is an exalted man who was once just like we are now — mortal, and that he had become god in the course of eternal progression. This fundamentally changes the definition of God from the omni-whatever to a more advanced doctrine — one where God comes much closer to home, and establishes the doctrine that God is exalted humanity. God the father is now an exalted man, incapable of dwelling in our heart (which is defined as an ‘old sectarian notion’), but rather, the God Within is established as the “Holy Ghost” — a real personage of Spirit (not just a mind).

But neither the Lectures on Faith nor King Follett are part of scripture today. Lectures on Faith have too many things that don’t fit the more advanced theology Joseph proclaimed later in life, and King Follett is way too speculative for saints to get their arms around. Instead, we have “Correlated Mormonism”, a watered-down theology that doesn’t clearly state its differences from the creedal omni-whatever, in an attempt to not be controversially non-christian. The church today embraces Christian fundamentalism far more than we might realize, and in a way that Joseph Smith would, in my opinion, find appalling.

shawn wrote:

Though my testimony has been rocked, I have retained or regained many of those views.

please enjoy. once i realized that, i have stopped responding to your posts where we disagree. For most believers in the Church, the certainty and comfort of standard “I believe” statements brings a lot of happiness. If that works for you, please keep doing it. My posts are not for you, but for those who cannot regain such views.

shawn wrote:

When I disagree with something and think it’s important, I will respond. I know I am often not good at doing that in a tactful and respectful manner and I am sorry for that.

if i were responding to your post directly, then responding to what you disagree with would be appropriate. what you have done here is to respond to my post to disagree and ask for moderators to censure my beliefs, when i was distinctly not attacking you. and that is inappropriate.

further, if you are going to respond to me, please read what i wrote fully before responding in a way that attempts to define my beliefs. you evidently did not read my first post in response to you on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Admin note: This discussion needs to move to private PM mode, if it continues. I’m leaving everything in the thread, so others can read the points where you disagree, but it’s at the point now where it needs be resolved privately, if that is what you both want. Nothing else that might be said will be productive in the public forum.

[Anonymous]

Ironically this discussion between Wayfarer and Shawn highlights a difficulty for Fair Mormon Outreach. The desire to be accepting of different viewpoints and allowing “non-traditional” interpretations and at the same time not shocking the more traditionally believing Mormon that is grappling with a few faith contradictions. On one hand – there is a positive desire to widen the tent as much as possible. On the other – if we as a church can reasonably claim to have the truth then how many versions, refractions, and interpretations of the truth can one accept as valid understandings of Mormonism before the truth that we once held as saving truth becomes just another idea in a sea of competing ideas.

I remember before I came to StayLDS I read an opinion of Todd Compton (Author of “In Sacred Loneliness”) that was something to the effect that he believed in the priesthood of all humanity or of all believers – but not in the traditional “unbroken line of authority, bestowed by the laying on of hands” etc. I remember thinking that Todd was an apostate or soon to be one. The book “A Marvelous Work and a Wonder” talks about the issue of authority. If the Catholic Church has it then all that separated themselves from her in protestation have long since been cut off. If the Catholic church where to lose this authority then it could only be had again on the earth by a restoration as the Mormon church has claimed. What happens to the traditional priesthood if we also accept the priesthood of all believers? What happens to me if my belief in the church and eternal families is based upon the sealing power and keys of the priesthood? I use this only as an example of the tension that exists between offering alternative and “non-traditional” understandings of Mormonism vs. reinforcing the traditional view. Some people might be best served by a complete faith reconstruction and those individuals might be harmed by others seemingly patronizing attempts to “patch the Titanic.” Others may only need a small patch or workaround to mend the hole in their traditional Mormon worldview and would be harmed by others suggestions that there are problems at the foundation level as well.

mackay11 wrote:

I don’t think FMO is designed for people wanting a middle way. I think they want faith promoting answers to put the boogie man back in the box. They want a place to reassure them, mend or support the mental shelf through discussion or reading supportive resources (sorry if that sounds condescending).

As such, mormonstories and even staylds is not suitable for all people concerned about LDS intellectual/historical issues. And some articles on MI are helpful to provide evidences for and answers to evidences against. The knowledge that ‘someone smarter than me’ (Royal Skousen or Brant Gardner for example) has checked it and said it’s fine can be enough for a lot of people. Maybe staylds is an option to PM to people who seem beyond the apologetic answers. But FMO is still an apologetics message board, just one without the agressive-dismissives that troll MDDB.

I believe there may be value in FMO realizing that they can’t be all things to all people and having a clear message and mission. There are people out there that are hurting, but that wouldn’t touch NOM or StayLDS with a ten foot pole. If FMO can help some of those people then I believe that they are fighting the good fight in a way that we can’t.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Ironically this discussion between Wayfarer and Shawn highlights a difficulty for Fair Mormon Outreach. The desire to be accepting of different viewpoints and allowing “non-traditional” interpretations and at the same time not shocking the more traditionally believing Mormon that is grappling with a few faith contradictions. On one hand – there is a positive desire to widen the tent as much as possible. On the other – if we as a church can reasonably claim to have the truth then how many versions, refractions, and interpretations of the truth can one accept as valid understandings of Mormonism before the truth that we once held as saving truth becomes just another idea in a sea of competing ideas.

I think the challenge exists around orthodoxy, and my reaction to it. Orthodoxy — that which is the correct opinion, supposes that there is a right way to think, and everything else is wrong.

Where this message thread went south is a reaction to my insistence on setting aside orthodoxy in order to accept that the book of mormon may be nonhistorical, yet divine. this is a key to my remaining in the fold: I cannot reject the overwhelming evidence that the book is nonhistorical, and in having any conversation with true believing LDS, I need to shut the freak up, because they will get offended one way or the other.

but how does one define “orthodox” in mormonism? take the fluid definition of god between the book of mormon (1829), section 88, lectures on faith (1835), and King Follett/sections 130-131 (1844). The book of mormon expresses a modal god and the Lectures on faith two personages, and god is omni-whatever. between them, we have Section 88, expressing a panentheist god who’s power is merely natural law. then in 1844 with KFD, we have a distinctly humanist god.

i am completely ok with the fluidity, but in the end, we cannot declare that all definitions are simultaneously operative. God (the being of the father) cannot be everywhere (Sec 88, LoF), and be inseparably corporeal (KFD, sections 93, 130, and 131). In the broad tent thinking you suggest, then can I not select which definition fits and ignore the rest? Or, must i somehow embrace the singularly illogical and contradictory god that adheres to all definitions simultaneously?

it seems to me that orthodoxy and apologetics, at the amateur level, tries to enforce the idea that all definitions are simultaneously true. i take another approach: there is a word for inspired speculation: “prophecy”. and prophecy, according to paul, is seeing through a glass, darkly, and can be wrong. of course, this is offensive to believers, so what do we do if this is our position?

bottom line: i don’t know how to have a conversation with a believer, and express what i believe, without offending them.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

i don’t know how to have a conversation with a believer, and express what i believe, without offending them.

I would phrase that differently, wayfarer:

Quote:

I don’t know how to have a conversation with someone who believes very differently than I do and insists that their view is 100% correct, without offending them.

Neither do I – as long as it is a conversation where one or both of us wants to convince the other. In that situation, offense is inevitable – so I generally choose to avoid engaging in the conversation. Generally, offense isn’t worth it, since I’d rather remain a friend, liked acquaintance or whatever else the relationship was before the conversation. I will share what I believe with people who want to know, but the minute it starts to get contentious, I tend to stop the conversation – even if that means I end up plastering a smile on my face for a while until I can leave or change the topic.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

I think the challenge exists around orthodoxy, and my reaction to it. Orthodoxy — that which is the correct opinion, supposes that there is a right way to think, and everything else is wrong.

I remember meeting with my former bishop and having a personal and honest conversation about where I am spiritually. He confessed to me that he similarly had had some sort of faith crisis. He compared it to building a building and having it all fall down except for the foundation and rebuilding from there. From our conversation it seemed that his foundation was priesthood authority. Everything else in the church could be so much speculation, but as long as it held the authority of the priesthood – the church was where salvation could be found.

In likening my own experience to that of my former bishop, if he came to rest on the foundation of priesthood authority then I continued to freefall all the way down to the bedrock of an unconditionally loving HF. We both landed on improvable concepts that must be taken on faith. We both built anew from our positions of relative stability. It just so happened that his position was fairly complementary to the orthodox view while mine was less so. He was free to interpret church stances on abortion, evolution, homosexuality, racism, and sexism as opinion. Even the form of the ordinances might change over time because it is the authority behind the ordinance that is the deciding factor.

The structure of faith that I would build for myself looks very different than that of my former bishop, yet the process that we went through is remarkably similar. From where I landed, Wayfarer’s approach is necessary and important for me to build bridges with the LDS position. I must “set aside orthodoxy in order to” be able to look for those pieces of Mormonism that resonate with me personally. If I were forced to view everything in the church as 100% true or 100% con then I would need to choose con as my bedrock of an unconditionally loving HF seems antithetical to how many members seem to understand the gospel (and how it seems to be taught in some instances in manuals, over the pulpit in GC, in our hymns, etc.)

I will now make some assumptions about Wayfarer and compare his assumed experience to my own. Where I landed in a place where I could fully accept a more or less physical God that is literally the father of my spirit and who possesses perfect love for me, it seems that Wayfarer may have landed in a place that is different still. Wayfarer’s worldview seems to have difficulty defining God as a physical Gandalf/Dumbledore/Santa clause character that is controlling the world on puppet strings and so Wayfarer defines God in a way that is consistent with his worldview.

Again I believe that the process of building faith is very similar in each case. In each case some trappings of orthodoxy are discarded in order to salvage the part that was still “alive” for the individual, just as dead branches might be pruned from a tree in order to save the root. My former bishop doesn’t need to redefine priesthood – he takes that on faith that is consistent with his experiences. I don’t need to redefine the typical portrayal of the Christian God (though I did need to redefine my understanding of priesthood) – I take a literal and physical god on faith that is consistent with my experiences. I assume that Wayfarer has had to redefine both God and priesthood in a way that he can take on faith and that is reasonably consistent with his experiences.

Even though we have each come to different and contradictory conclusions, we have each sought to worship according to the dictates of our own individual consciences and follow the recent invitation of Elder Uchtdorf to “Take a walk in nature. Watch a sunset, and find out what the restored gospel means to you personally.”

[Anonymous]

I am been thinking about what really got me bothered. If a statement is presented as a personal belief, then it won’t get under my skin. If a statement tears down other’s beliefs (sometimes my own), then it can be bothersome. Here are some examples with A statements being more likely to bother some people and B statements being less likely:

A. We must abandon x, y, and z. (This implies the speaker is absolutely correct in his or her view of the subject, so others should adopt that view.)

B. I do not agree with x, y, and z.

A. We need to stop avoiding the evidence that x is non-historical. (This implies that anyone who has a literal view is ignoring incontrovertible evidence and is wrong.)

B. I cannot ignore the evidence that x is non-historical.

A. It is impossible for God to have quality x. (If someone believes that God does have quality x, then that person is being told their belief is impossible or illogical.

B. I do not believe God has quality x.

A. X is the wrong paradigm. (This tells others they are wrong.)

B. I do not subscribe to such a paradigm.

I think if everyone presents statements as a personal belief only, it will be easier to share and understand each other. This can apply to this site and to FMO.

[Anonymous]

moved to email

[Anonymous]

Admin note: I will repeat that the conversation between Shawn and wayfarer needs to continue, if it continues, privately. I will not touch any of the comments posted to this point; they will remain as written. No more will be allowed in this thread. This thread will return to the topic – FAIR Mormon Outreach.

Please respect that request.

[Anonymous]

Shawn does make a very good general point about the proper way to express our views on this site. None of us are perfect but it is in our mission to communicate in a way that does not demean another point of view.

[Author]

Posts