Discussion on Universalism and the Mormon Church

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Ok I think I see your point...and I'm just trying to figure out that I understand your point, not really argue with it. : )

It is God that has left the "clues" more than they're being the conscious work of various Mormon leaders, is I think your point?

There are certain "universal truths" that most (if not all) religions have, such as self sacrifice. Universalism is one of these universal truths, and is hidden in all religions because God wants us all to come to this realization someday. By realizing that spirituality is not a single dimensional line but a multi dimensional plain (or possibly a sphere or more such dimensions). Take Islam, for example, which states that Islamics are to love their brothers and sisters of the Abrahamic covenant. Take Christ teaching of the good Samaritan, or even His basic principle of Loving everyone. Buddhism teaches of understanding and compassion. Even Hinduism teaches this. Why teach this? The reasoning is two fold - first off, thoughs who truly practice this principle will have fewer conflicts of bloodshed, and secondly, its the starting step towards universalism.

So to answer the question, God left clues. It is our job to discover them.

If God is universal, why would he have bothered to get Mormonism started in the first place?

[_Ray A]

Is this a paraphrase from Joseph Smith, Ray? I'm asking because it does seem different, as do many things, from what individual Mormons generally believe and what the contemporary institution teaches...

As far as I know this statement, about accepting truth, is from Brigham Young:

"Our religion embraces all truth and every fact in existence, no matter whether in heaven, earth, or hell. A fact is a fact, all truth issues forth from the Fountain of truth, and the sciences are facts as far as men have proved them" ("Remarks by President Brigham Young, Attending Meetings--Religion and Science--Geology--The Creation," Delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, May 14, 1871, Journal of Discourses, 14: 117.)

Young also stated:

I am not astonished that infidelity prevails to a great extent among the inhabitants of the earth, for the religious teachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science, and which are generally understood. You take, for instance, our geologists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years. They think, and they have good reason for their faith, that their researches and investigations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been in existence as long as they assert it has. . . . In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts--they are eternal; and to assert that the Lord made the earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible. . . . How long it's been organized is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it. As to the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant.

I think the Church has generally been cautious about issuing dogmatic statements, for which it has been criticised for not taking a "stand", such as on evolution. Probably the most "dogmatic" was made in the early 1900s, but this was no more binding than statements on blacks, which subsequently came to be somewhat suspect.

I don't think the "institutional Church" is always right. I have long said that Mormonism isn't "the Church", and "the Church" isn't Mormonism. See 3 Nephi 27.

[_Nephi]

I have long said that Mormonism isn't "the Church", and "the Church" isn't Mormonism. See 3 Nephi 27.

I would like if you could please expand on this subject, maybe explain why you think Chap 27 of 3rd Nephi negates the Mormon church as being "the Church" please.

[_Ray A]

I would like if you could please expand on this subject, maybe explain why you think Chap 27 of 3rd Nephi negates the Mormon church as being "the Church" please.

It doesn't necessarily negate the Church, only insofar as the Church ventures into areas which God has not. I raise the example of blacks, again. There were no direct revelations concerning blacks, and even McConkie quoted, of all things, the Book of Mormon, in his "retraction" statement. All along the Book of Mormon said in 2 Nephi 26:

33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

He denieth none. The "black policy" was the invention of men. If they had listened to the Book of Mormon from the start, all of this could have been avoided. And the Book of Moses was taken completely out of context. I believe the same about polygamy. I suppose I'm like David Whitmer in this regard. The Church is a fallible organisation, though I realise "TBMs" think differently. When exmos say they "left the Church", I believe them, and don't blame them to some degree. But I have a much larger, and maybe "liberal" view of what Mormonism really is. I really do believe that God inspired Joseph Smith, and I'm not cynical about his view that sometimes he "speaks as a prophet", and other times "as a man". We just have to determine the difference, without throwing out both baby and bathwater, so to speak.

[_Nephi]

He denieth none. The "black policy" was the invention of men. If they had listened to the Book of Mormon from the start, all of this could have been avoided. And the Book of Moses was taken completely out of context. I believe the same about polygamy. I suppose I'm like David Whitmer in this regard. The Church is a fallible organisation, though I realise "TBMs" think differently. When exmos say they "left the Church", I believe them, and don't blame them to some degree. But I have a much larger, and maybe "liberal" view of what Mormonism really is. I really do believe that God inspired Joseph Smith, and I'm not cynical about his view that sometimes he "speaks as a prophet", and other times "as a man". We just have to determine the difference, without throwing out both baby and bathwater, so to speak.

Preach on, brother. I couldn't agree moreso. Yes, I do find that sometimes it is difficult as a member to separate when a profit speaks as a profit and when he speaks as a man. Sometimes it is obvious (such as when Joseph Smith was speaking about Moonmen), and sometimes its not (like taking "R" rated movies out of context and applying them to the whole congregation).

[_Ray A]

Preach on, brother. I couldn't agree moreso. Yes, I do find that sometimes it is difficult as a member to separate when a profit speaks as a profit and when he speaks as a man. Sometimes it is obvious (such as when Joseph Smith was speaking about Moonmen), and sometimes its not (like taking "R" rated movies out of context and applying them to the whole congregation).

It was actually Brigham Young who taught this, and also that the sun was inhabited:

"I will tell you who the real fanatics are: they are they who adopt
false principles and ideas as facts, and try to establish a
superstructure upon, a false foundation. They are the fanatics; and
however ardent and zealous they may be, they may reason or argue on
false premises till doomsday, and the result will be false. If our
religion is of this character we want to know it; we would like to find
a philosopher who can prove it to us. We are called ignorant; so we are:
but what of it? Are not all ignorant? I rather think so. Who can tell us
of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening,
called the moon? When we view its face we may see what is termed "the
man in the moon," and what some philosophers declare are the shadows of
mountains. But these sayings are very vague, and amount to nothing; and
when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the
most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of
their fellows. So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do
you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is
any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made
to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets; and so
will this earth when it is celestialized. Every planet in its first
rude, organic state receives not the glory of God upon it, but is
opaque; but when celestialized, every planet that God brings into
existence is a body of light, but not till then. Christ is the light of
this planet." - Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.271.

Does this negate Mormonism? Not at all. But it should inculcate some healthy skepticism about bland statements.

Paul O, by the way, literally believes this. "Apostate" Internet Mormons tend to be somewhat more sophisticated, while not wholly discarding Mormonism. I suppose you call them - "ruffled believers", but still believers.

[_Nephi]

Preach on, brother. I couldn't agree moreso. Yes, I do find that sometimes it is difficult as a member to separate when a profit speaks as a profit and when he speaks as a man. Sometimes it is obvious (such as when Joseph Smith was speaking about Moonmen), and sometimes its not (like taking "R" rated movies out of context and applying them to the whole congregation).

It was actually Brigham Young who taught this, and also that the sun was inhabited:

"I will tell you who the real fanatics are: they are they who adopt
false principles and ideas as facts, and try to establish a
superstructure upon, a false foundation. They are the fanatics; and
however ardent and zealous they may be, they may reason or argue on
false premises till doomsday, and the result will be false. If our
religion is of this character we want to know it; we would like to find
a philosopher who can prove it to us. We are called ignorant; so we are:
but what of it? Are not all ignorant? I rather think so. Who can tell us
of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening,
called the moon? When we view its face we may see what is termed "the
man in the moon," and what some philosophers declare are the shadows of
mountains. But these sayings are very vague, and amount to nothing; and
when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the
most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of
their fellows. So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do
you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is
any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made
to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets; and so
will this earth when it is celestialized. Every planet in its first
rude, organic state receives not the glory of God upon it, but is
opaque; but when celestialized, every planet that God brings into
existence is a body of light, but not till then. Christ is the light of
this planet." - Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.271.

Does this negate Mormonism? Not at all. But it should inculcate some healthy skepticism about bland statements.

Paul O, by the way, literally believes this. "Apostate" Internet Mormons tend to be somewhat more sophisticated, while not wholly discarding Mormonism. I suppose you call them - "ruffled believers", but still believers.

This all links back to my ideas about Universalism. If one is not comfortable with the church they are in, if the church is spiritually hindering them, then they need to go elsewhere. Church is but a tool we use to help us understand God and Spirituality better. I am skeptic by nature, especially about blanket statements, or black and white statements. One must be careful when using such things, for they tend to polarize individuals which blocks their ability to learn anything.

[_Ray A]

One must be careful when using such things, for they tend to polarize individuals which blocks their ability to learn anything.

All silliness to the skeptics, my friend. Complete silliness.

You and I are complete basket cases. We hold on to "utter nonsense". Don't even mention Campbell, another relativist nutcase.

[_Nephi]

One must be careful when using such things, for they tend to polarize individuals which blocks their ability to learn anything.

All silliness to the skeptics, my friend. Complete silliness.

You and I are complete basket cases. We hold on to "utter nonsense". Don't even mention Campbell, another relativist nutcase.

"Does believing you're the last sane man on the planet make you crazy? 'Cause if it does, maybe I am." - Del Spooner, iRobot

by the way: Glad to see others of the faith have read him. He is a good read, imho.

[_beastie]

Universalism did have an effect on Mormon theology. Joseph Smith's father tended to universalism, which caused his mother distress and presented a conflict for young Joseph.

However, the Book of Mormon does preach against universalism as well. (see 2 Nephi 28:8 rejecting the idea that God will simpoly "beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God) Dan Vogel wrote an essay about the Book of Mormon and universalism, if I have time later today I'll get some more Book of Mormon references from it.