As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.

[_Runtu]

As you can see, I'm not really into spinning and hedging on difficult questions, or I try not to be. I doubt I'd be alone on this among the LDS. I find it to be a poor tack.

So do I. It happens all the time, though.

[_KimberlyAnn]

Hi, Dad.

I'd like to weigh in by suggesting that Eternal Progression is the gravamen of arguments against Mormonism. Eternal Progression is, in my view, nonsensical. It is also the distinguishing and most essential doctrine of the LDS church. Without Eternal Progression, the LDS church is no more than any other non-Trinitarian religious organization.

The pinnacle of eternal life, according to Mormonism, isn't accepting Jesus as one's Savior and then living contentedly worshiping him forever; the pinnacle is progressing to eventual Godhood. Any Christian denomination down the street can get one as far as heaven, but only Mormonism claims to get one to Godhood.

That God was once a man and that men may become Gods is essential to Mormonism. And the concept of Eternal Progression as framed by Joseph Smith and various Mormon prophets doesn't make a lick of sense.

See this thread for more details: Cosmology Conundrum

Or possibly this one: Just More Confusing Stuff

Best of luck navigating your way through Mormon theology, Dad. There be dragons.




KA

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Hi, Dad.

I'd like to weigh in by suggesting that Eternal Progression is the gravamen of arguments against Mormonism. Eternal Progression is, in my view, nonsensical. It is also the distinguishing and most essential doctrine of the LDS church. Without Eternal Progression, the LDS church is no more than any other non-Trinitarian religious organization.

The pinnacle of eternal life, according to Mormonism, isn't accepting Jesus as one's Savior and then living contentedly worshiping him forever; the pinnacle is progressing to eventual Godhood. Any Christian denomination down the street can get one as far as heaven, but only Mormonism claims to get one to Godhood.

That God was once a man and that men may become Gods is essential to Mormonism. And the concept of Eternal Progression as framed by Joseph Smith and various Mormon prophets doesn't make a lick of sense.

See this thread for more details: Cosmology Conundrum

Or possibly this one: Just More Confusing Stuff

Best of luck navigating your way through Mormon theology, Dad. There be dragons.

KA

Thanks for your well wishes, KA. I have to be honest, though. I don't think that the idea of eternal progression is any weirder than other religious doctrines, such as the trinity, transubstantiation, Brahman, vicarious atonement, or many others. There is a logic to it that sort of makes sense. Not that I agree with it or believe it, but there are weirder religious doctrines out there.

But I think the fact that GBH would attempt to downplay it does tell you something about the mentality of the Church. Their goal is to win. Convert as many people as possible. If that means strategically changing doctrine, so be it. Nonmembers don't tithe.

[_consiglieri]

While the church may not dedicate specific lessons or teachings about "God, once a man" (nothing has been "revealed" about the details) the idea is so interwoven into the doctrines of the church that to understand it otherwise is to be completely confused about church teachings.

I agree with you, Tchild, that the concept that God was once a man ties everything together in Mormon theology. I believe it was for that reason that Joseph Smith proclaimed it as "the great secret" in the King Follett Discourse.

Denying this teaching undercuts most of Mormonism.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_KimberlyAnn]

Hi, Dad.

I'd like to weigh in by suggesting that Eternal Progression is the gravamen of arguments against Mormonism. Eternal Progression is, in my view, nonsensical. It is also the distinguishing and most essential doctrine of the LDS church. Without Eternal Progression, the LDS church is no more than any other non-Trinitarian religious organization.

The pinnacle of eternal life, according to Mormonism, isn't accepting Jesus as one's Savior and then living contentedly worshiping him forever; the pinnacle is progressing to eventual Godhood. Any Christian denomination down the street can get one as far as heaven, but only Mormonism claims to get one to Godhood.

That God was once a man and that men may become Gods is essential to Mormonism. And the concept of Eternal Progression as framed by Joseph Smith and various Mormon prophets doesn't make a lick of sense.

See this thread for more details: Cosmology Conundrum

Or possibly this one: Just More Confusing Stuff

Best of luck navigating your way through Mormon theology, Dad. There be dragons.

KA

Thanks for your well wishes, KA. I have to be honest, though. I don't think that the idea of eternal progression is any weirder than other religious doctrines, such as the trinity, transubstantiation, Brahman, vicarious atonement, or many others. There is a logic to it that sort of makes sense. Not that I agree with it or believe it, but there are weirder religious doctrines out there.

But I think the fact that GBH would attempt to downplay it does tell you something about the mentality of the Church. Their goal is to win. Convert as many people as possible. If that means strategically changing doctrine, so be it. Nonmembers don't tithe.

Yes, Dad, I can certainly agree that Eternal Progression isn't the weirdest religious belief on the planet, but we part ways when it comes to the logic of it. On the surface it may appear semi-reasonable, but after digging through the nitty-gritty details of Eternal Progression and applying the specific parameters laid by Mormon Prophets and Apostles, the concept becomes immediately bogged down by illogic.

You are spot-on about the attitude of Mormon Prophets and Apostles. I think the attitude trickles down to Mormon apologists, as well. The strategy is to grow their church. To tie those wily Postum drinkers down on theological issues is akin to nailing Jello to the wall. ;)

KA

[_KimberlyAnn]

Denying this teaching undercuts most of Mormonism.

You are such a refreshing Mormon, Consig.

KA

[_Ceeboo]

You are such a refreshing Mormon, Consig.

KA

Indeed!


Peace,
Ceeboo

[_consiglieri]

You are such a refreshing Mormon, Consig.

KA

I am sad that such should be the case but grateful you think so, Kimberly.

It is so nice to see you back on the board, by the way.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_why me]

Darth J has shown that it is taught in correlated manuals, which are supposed to be used in church meetings. Unless people are intentionally "straying from the manual," I'd say it's impossible "for a person to go to church their whole life and never encounter this teaching."

You must have been home when it was taught in priesthood when the LDS were studying Joseph Smith. It is stated in that manual. I think consig, you want to hear what you want to hear and don't hear what you don't want to hear.

I sense a change in you. But I could be wrong.

You (and Darth) may be right about this. God knows I tend to shift my brain into neutral while at church.

But my experience has been that whenever this couplet comes up, the tendency is to focus on the "man may become" part rather than the "God once was" part.

Except for two years ago in my Gospel Doctrine class when we "parted from the manual" to get knee deep into the King Follett Discourse . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

I think consig, you want to hear what you want to hear and don't hear what you don't want to hear.

I'm sorry.

Did you say something?