CWK: Becoming a god: deification in Mormonism and Orthodox theosis

[Gadianton]

I didn't listen to your podcast, but just reading this, section 132 is deeply rooted, and I would argue solely rooted for sex, for both the present (polygamy) and the future (continuation of seeds). 132 was the get out of jail card for the underground sex cult the church had become in Nauvoo for the selected leaders.

While I totally agree, just don't get too jealous over Smith achieving the dream of every Trump pastor on Rumble.

[Kishkumen]

I didn't listen to your podcast, but just reading this, section 132 is deeply rooted, and I would argue solely rooted for sex, for both the present (polygamy) and the future (continuation of seeds). 132 was the get out of jail card for the underground sex cult the church had become in Nauvoo for the selected leaders.

As far as it being rooted in the New Testament is nothing more that a reverse engineering by Smith, starting with the doctrine, then working backwards taking verses out of context that when broken down contradict the LDS doctrine. Psalms 82 being a prime example in a LDS context in that it demands that a exalted perfected being can be wicked, and throws the "be ye perfect" teaching is the waste basket.

The "hope" was for Joseph the have sex with as many women/girls as possible, and the teaching of deification was a means to that end in a teasing promise for his victims and their family. The temple, garments, tithing....etc, and the promise as taught in Gospel Principles that all exalted folks with having all power, glory, knowledge, and dominion as HF and Christ. The continuation of seeds, virgins, and concubines, is all centered for Smiths scam. Mormonism at that point, by the leaders, was nothing more than a sex cult, and todays church carry it on from a eternal prospective, even if by ignorance by the mainstream membership,

Say what you will about Ed Decker, one thing he got right was the title of his book, the LDS church is a for the elite "God Makers." And, it was rooted in and for sex by Smith.

Thanks for chiming in, Markk. Since the topic is my YouTube episode for Coffee With Kish, I don't know why the debate is becoming the sexual motivation for Section 132. It seems to me that you are trying to reverse engineer the LDS doctrine of deification by placing your own interpretation of 132 at the front of the whole thing. I don't think that works. I don't deny that Joseph Smith was motivated partly by his sexual desire to practice polygamy, but the evidence shows that the situation was more complicated than that. Some of his early plural wives he married when they were pregnant, for example. I don't think his sexual desire for pregnant women is at the root of the practice, let alone at the root of deification.

[Markk]

I didn't listen to your podcast, but just reading this, section 132 is deeply rooted, and I would argue solely rooted for sex, for both the present (polygamy) and the future (continuation of seeds). 132 was the get out of jail card for the underground sex cult the church had become in Nauvoo for the selected leaders.

As far as it being rooted in the New Testament is nothing more that a reverse engineering by Smith, starting with the doctrine, then working backwards taking verses out of context that when broken down contradict the LDS doctrine. Psalms 82 being a prime example in a LDS context in that it demands that a exalted perfected being can be wicked, and throws the "be ye perfect" teaching is the waste basket.

The "hope" was for Joseph the have sex with as many women/girls as possible, and the teaching of deification was a means to that end in a teasing promise for his victims and their family. The temple, garments, tithing....etc, and the promise as taught in Gospel Principles that all exalted folks with having all power, glory, knowledge, and dominion as HF and Christ. The continuation of seeds, virgins, and concubines, is all centered for Smiths scam. Mormonism at that point, by the leaders, was nothing more than a sex cult, and todays church carry it on from a eternal prospective, even if by ignorance by the mainstream membership,

Say what you will about Ed Decker, one thing he got right was the title of his book, the LDS church is a for the elite "God Makers." And, it was rooted in and for sex by Smith.

Thanks for chiming in, Markk. Since the topic is my YouTube episode for Coffee With Kish, I don't know why the debate is becoming the sexual motivation for Section 132. It seems to me that you are trying to reverse engineer the LDS doctrine of deification by placing your own interpretation of 132 at the front of the whole thing. I don't think that works. I don't deny that Joseph Smith was motivated partly by his sexual desire to practice polygamy, but the evidence shows that the situation was more complicated than that. Some of his early plural wives he married when they were pregnant, for example. I don't think his sexual desire for pregnant women is at the root of the practice, let alone at the root of deification.

It's not "my own interpretation" of 132...it is the interpretation of many if not most of those outside looking back objectively. 132 is clear, and the end goal is a continuation of seeds (sex), even with virgins. The doctrine was a mustache, and as I wrote, a means to an end... sex. And Joseph made it a everlasting covenant.

Having sex with a pregnant woman is hardly a way out of 132, or he having sex with a pregnant wife. For all we know he could have gotten a BJ from them. What we do know is that he had verifiable sex with several. Just think of the women we don't know about? It blows my mind that folks want to somehow say that Joseph didn't have sex with his wives, when virtually every other man that entered into the ELC did. Heck, I am a by product of it and would not be here if it were not for my 13 plus sets grandparents, all four sides, going back to Nauvoo. LOL...I am probably related to half the folks here in one way or the other.

Kish, he promised women and their family eternal life as God's and Goddesses', kings and queens, if they entered in to the ELC as explained in 132. He did so with young women/girls he basically adopted, under the promise of deification.

There is really no debate on this subject, LDS deification is rooted from the beginning in Smith's sexual desires. It was not to practice polygamy, it was for the sex, and polygamy was just the conduit to justify it with the Old Testament patriarchs who practiced polygamy and had concubines.

[Kishkumen]

It's not "my own interpretation" of 132...it is the interpretation of many if not most of those outside looking back objectively.

Well, it sure as eff is not MY interpretation of it. It may be the interpretation of most anti- and ex-Mormons, but why should that be particularly accurate? "We don't like Mormons, so the Joseph Smith was a pervert, end of story."

132 is clear, and the end goal is a continuation of seeds (sex), even with virgins. The doctrine was a mustache, and as I wrote, a means to an end... sex. And Joseph made it an everlasting covenant.

Good crimeny, man! So, seeds just mean sex and nothing more? Are you SERIOUS? Sex means kids, too, genius! That's what this is about: increasing the family. But you stop at SEX, because you are biased against Smith in exactly that way. You say it is a "mustache," but the stated goal IN THE REVELATION is ETERNAL LIVES.

Having sex with a pregnant woman is hardly a way out of 132, or he having sex with a pregnant wife. For all we know he could have gotten a BJ from them.

So effing prove it, dude. Good grief. You can imagine foot fetishes or whatever. All that tells me is that you have a pornographic lens for interpreting sexual relationships in the past. I have no reason, absent EVIDENCE, to think that Joseph married pregnant women because he couldn't get a BJ from someone else. SMFH, man. The guy was visiting prostitutes. If he was just after sex, he could simply visit the prostitutes more often.

What we do know is that he had verifiable sex with several. Just think of the women we don't know about? It blows my mind that folks want to somehow say that Joseph didn't have sex with his wives, when virtually every other man that entered into the ELC did. Heck, I am a by product of it and would not be here if it were not for my 13 plus sets grandparents, all four sides, going back to Nauvoo. LOL...I am probably related to half the folks here in one way or the other.

If you are frustrated with Brian Hales, don't take it out on me. I don't need your crap. Seriously, take out your frustrations on Hales. I am not Hales. I never said sex was NOT a factor in polygamy. Get off my rear bumper, homey.

Kish, he promised women and their family eternal life as God's and Goddesses', kings and queens, if they entered in to the ELC as explained in 132. He did so with young women/girls he basically adopted, under the promise of deification.

And it is your assumption that he did not believe it. I get it. I see it. Most ex-LDS people, most anti-Mormons do. Look, I am not saying it is true! Just because it isn't true doesn't mean he didn't believe it. Just because he believed it doesn't make it right. Just because it isn't right doesn't mean he didn't believe it. Life is more complicated than the narrative you tell yourself to justify your personal decisions. I am not gainsaying your personal decisions. At the same time, they don't drive MY interpretation of history.

There is really no debate on this subject . . . .

What a stupid statement. You are PARTICIPATING IN A DEBATE ON THIS SUBJECT, GENIUS.

[Markk]

Kish wrote...Well, it sure as eff is not MY interpretation of it. It may be the interpretation of most anti- and ex-Mormons, but why should that be particularly accurate? "We don't like Mormons, so the Joseph Smith was a pervert, end of story."

And you are in denial. Kish, he brought girls into his home, and when the blossomed into young women, he married them behind folks back, even Emma, and had sex with them in his home even while they called Emma, aunt Emma.

My assertion and accusation is not just a stab in the dark, it is documented truth.

Kish wrote...Good crimeny, man! So, seeds just mean sex and nothing more? Are you SERIOUS? Sex means kids, too, genius! That's what this is about: increasing the family. But you stop at SEX, because you are biased against Smith in exactly that way. You say it is a "mustache," but the stated goal IN THE REVELATION is ETERNAL LIVES.

Well when in context with plural marriage, concubine's, and the history of Joseph's infidelity, and associations like with Bennett, Claytons diary, the Temple lot affidavits, and a whole lot more, yes seeds in the context of 132 demands sex and is a "excuse" for it....absolutely. Maybe you can explain how Mormonism and becoming a God (deification) demands eternal marriage and a sexual relationship.

If only those in the highest level of the CK are the only folks that can become Gods, and have sex for the plan of salvation happiness, and this is called the continuation of seeds, how is this not directly connected to sex. And I never said it just means sex, It implies it, and Joseph used it as being more, as you are buying into.

Kish wrote...If you are frustrated with Brian Hales, don't take it out on me. I don't need your crap. Seriously, take out your frustrations on Hales. I am not Hales. I never said sex was NOT a factor in polygamy. Get off my rear bumper, homey.

LOL, I am giving you my opinion how on earth am I taking anything out on you....LOL a bit defensive here Kisk. I am not in the least bit frustrated, I am talking to you. You are putting yourself out there, deal with folks disagreeing with you. And as far as Brian Hales goes, LOL my cousin, we share the same GGGGF but different GGGGM, Edwin Whiting, how does he fit in here? I have had long e-mail conversations with him and I am not sure what your point is there. in my opinion he is just a monologist making excuses like you are.

Take a deep breath, and try to engage. You can certainly disagree, and show me where I am wrong here.

And it is your assumption that he did not believe it. I get it. I see it. Most ex-LDS people, most anti-Mormons do. Look, I am not saying it is true! Just because it isn't true doesn't mean he didn't believe it. Just because he believed it doesn't make it right. Just because it isn't right doesn't mean he didn't believe it. Life is more complicated than the narrative you tell yourself to justify your personal decisions. I am not gainsaying your personal decisions. At the same time, they don't drive MY interpretation of history.

So you believe he was banging all the young girls, older women, behind his wives back and most the folks that were supporting him financially....because he believed he could become a God?

Again, In my view there is no debate that he was a con, and a charlatan, and a bad person, a very bad person....and that his con still goes on with members and folks like you that allow it. Go to the temple, keep your covenants, pay your tithing, and you can become a God and have eternal sex with many wives and make worlds for your spirit children to live on? Explain that away Kish?

and one more time...

Kish, he brought orphans into his home and said if the married him secretly and had sex with him they would become Goddesses"

[huckelberry]

Mark , I do not think it makes sense to try and deny the sexual dimension of Joseph Smith polygamy but that is only part of the matter. I think it is clear that Joseph sought to build a community of closely linked and committed people. There was a depth of commitment and sense of sacrifice that people desired and polygamy tapped into. That commitment system lives on today in the temple.

People probably have different reactions but for me dc132 is disturbing for reasons other than sex. I find the power grab , control and vainglory quite dark.

[Kishkumen]

And you are in denial. Kish, he brought girls into his home, and when the blossomed into young women, he married them behind folks back, even Emma, and had sex with them in his home even while they called Emma, aunt Emma.

My assertion and accusation is not just a stab in the dark, it is documented truth.

Markk, you are interested in one thing that you are satisfied is true. You morally object to Smith’s behavior. All you need to do is to keep reminding yourself of that conclusion, and you remain satisfied. Other people who are looking for other things can pursue those avenues of investigation, and they are not likely to be moved by your little self-soothing exercise.

I am not interested in exculpating Smith, so I have no interest in your argument. For me, this is not about reminding myself why I am not LDS. I am comfortable with the facts and happy to pursue my own investigation of the full complexity of Smith’s activities. I don’t need to approve or disapprove of them to do so.

But, please feel free to rub your security blanket, if you need to. Maybe you can drag a couple of other people out of the LDS Church in the process. That, too, is of no interest to me.

[Kishkumen]

Mark , I do not think it makes sense to try and deny the sexual dimension of Joseph Smith polygamy but that is only part of the matter. I think it is clear that Joseph sought to build a community of closely linked and committed people. There was a depth of commitment and sense of sacrifice that people desired and polygamy tapped into. That commitment system lives on today in the temple.

People probably have different reactions but for me dc132 is disturbing for reasons other than sex. I find the power grab , control and vainglory quite dark.

Yes, it is possible to have more than a single track in your mind. You have no interest in rescuing Smith’s reputation, but you see that being reductive is not the only possibility. That is one of the reasons why I respect you.

[Moksha]

Was becoming a God (in Mormonism) made possible by practicing The Principle?

[Markk]

Mark , I do not think it makes sense to try and deny the sexual dimension of Joseph Smith polygamy but that is only part of the matter. I think it is clear that Joseph sought to build a community of closely linked and committed people. There was a depth of commitment and sense of sacrifice that people desired and polygamy tapped into. That commitment system lives on today in the temple.

People probably have different reactions but for me dc132 is disturbing for reasons other than sex. I find the power grab , control and vainglory quite dark.

Joseph hid and denied polygamy. The folks for the most part denied it, if they even knew about it when he was alive. His is bane was going after Law and the others that wanted to expose it, which was very much part of section 132 and the sin Joseph asked forgiveness for and the very threat to Emma if she did not agree with it.

Section 132 starts with

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

It goes on to read that those that do not enter into it, are damned. meaning those that did not enter into plural marriage, and sexual relations, were not going to become Gods, of deified.

6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.


it then goes on to speak of fruits of the "loins," virgins, etc....

Is this a power grab sure, a power grab deeply grounded in taking advantage of women sexually, with the promise of deification and eternal increase taking advantage of their motherly instincts and the promise of a eternal family.

It does live on in the temple for sure, which is a huge part of my point.

As far as building a community, sure, one that served and benefited him. But again, the very most knew nothing about polygamy, it was mainly BY that introduced it to the Brigamites, with help of his wives. While those that followed William and Emma denied it.