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

[Gadianton]

Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice and provided atonement for all of the worlds created, and all of those yet to be created.

There is one school of thought in Restoration theology that there is progression through roles in the Godhead, from Holy Spirit to Christ to Father. Not all armchair theologians have accepted that Christ was the savior for all the worlds.

If I were a young scholar at the new MI, my interest would be how Mormonism grappled with philosophical problems, having rejected philosophy and embraced a "science only" attitude. Contra Dan, Mormonism is thoroughly materialistic and to a fault. It's almost as bad as Richard Dawkins, while Dan tries to portray it as the polar opposite. It's a total burn on Dan, to be honest. Almost as bad as mistaking the Warsaw hotel for Sharp's personal residence. Mormonism is very much like New Atheism in that regard. And so here's one more point of rebuttal to the "sex only" theories, and that is material beings reproduce by sex. If you've rejected "immaterial matter" and all the "thinking about thought" Aristotle nonsense, then how family relations expand into eternity becomes an interesting problem. Unfortunately, the problem is philosophical in nature, and so the Hellenist bullet wasn't dodged, and now you're working through a calculus problem with an abacus -- but that in itself can still be interesting. You've locked yourself into this hugely complex mess, and how are you going to get out vs. those who eliminate mechanical components to simplify the problem as much as possible?

Blake Ostler actually has a great summary of a lot of this stuff. I think it was Blake. Anyway, Christ dies for everyone in the worlds his father created, there isn't a savior for every world. So are the worlds where Christ didn't die less special than the one where he did die? Well, that's us, of course! The special one! But then, who died for the sins of the worlds God's father created? Well that could have been our very own heavenly father himself! We're so special, that our God was also the Christ of his father's world. But what about God's father's father? Who died for the sins of his worlds? Now you're stuck, because maybe that was another God? The problem is that somewhere, there's a God three rungs up who was the Christ of his world, and whose child and grandchild were Christs of their world, and so the inhabitants of that world would be more special than us. This is one of many speculative problems that arise.

[Moksha]

So, I cut my episodes in half.

Better to be listened to than exhaustive.

[Markk]

Kish again you are just butthurt, get over it and improve your podcast. If a person that did not know and understand LDS deification, as it is taught, and listened to your podcast, they would not have a clue of the truth of what was and is taught by the church past and present. If that was your goal, you did a great job.

Markk, it is difficult to be butthurt with a guy as obtuse as you are. No one, and I mean no one who has an ounce of self-respect, gives a damn about the carpers who go around telling them what they should have done. Here’s an idea: do it yourself! I did the episode I wanted to do at the time, covering the information I wanted to cover. It could not possibly cover the entire topic in 25 minutes. That would be impossible. I am sure I will get back to the topic of deification again in the future, and at that time I will cover different things about it.

How on earth did you compare LDS defecation to a supposed orthodox, when you admittedly did not even identify the roots, and I will add the very teachings of LDS deification? The main ritual to LDS deification is one has to enter into polygamy, which today is just eternal marriage.

Yeah, I did not compare LDS defecation to a “supposed orthodox.” Get back to me when you have the time to cool down and type your thoughts coherently.

LDS deification is about obedience to eternal laws. It is about the eternal family and the continuing cycle of progression. It is about eternally continued peoples being eternally procreated through sexual relations.

I did not want you to teach anything, I just pointed out what you expounded on is does not compliment LDS theology. Read the quotes I pasted to Huckleberry from a LDS PH manual....that is a brief overview of LDS deification.

Don’t flatter yourself, Markk. Nothing you have brought up here is new to me or a surprise. All you are saying is that I didn’t do the podcast you wanted to hear. Well, ya didn’t pay for it, so I don’t feel like I’ve done you wrong there. It was 25 minutes Markk. I did what I set out to do in that time. You would rather I had done something else. Yes, got it. I don’t see the point in continuing this discussion. It is clear we don’t agree. It is clear what your agenda is. I don’t see the point in you pretending that you are illuminating anything when you are not.

Blah, blah blah. Kish, I am not flattering anything, I am showing you LDS deification as taught by Joseph Smith. It is core LDS thought an doctrine. The bottom line is that Joseph offered eternal life and deification to women for sex. Yeah you had 25 minutes, and failed to nail down the core principles and history of LDS deification, which you could have expounded on in 5 or 6 minutes.

If your going to do a podcast on LDS deification, then at least accurately discuss what LDS deification demands, it is really that simple. You failed.

I

[Zosimus]

I am showing you LDS deification as taught by Joseph Smith. It is core LDS thought an doctrine. The bottom line is that Joseph offered eternal life and deification to women for sex. Yeah you had 25 minutes, and failed to nail down the core principles and history of LDS deification, which you could have expounded on in 5 or 6 minutes.

I don’t get the sense that Joseph Smith would be so careless as to make up “core principles” (as you say) out of the blue so he could get ladies. Like we find in the King Follett discourse, Joseph likes to back up his core doctrines with the Bible, and I suspect, commentaries on the Bible that he trusts (eg Clarke). I propose Voltaire’s writings as one of Smith’s authoritative Biblical commentaries, because 1. Voltaire covers a lot of ground across obscure religious topics in his essays and dictionaries, and 2. Joseph Smith Sr. frequently declared Voltaire’s writings were exactly that (see above).

If you are interested in discussing the origins of Joseph's doctrine of eternal marriage, here's Voltaire discussing something resembling Joseph’s plan of salvation with a hint of celestial wifery:

"God forgives, after several thousand centuries, the delinquent spirits; he creates the earth as a place of trial to give them an opportunity to atone for their crimes; he makes them pass through several metamorphoses….When these celestial and punished spirits have undergone several metamorphoses without committing crimes, they finally return with their wives to heaven, their first homeland."

[Kishkumen]

Better to be listened to than exhaustive.

I agree. Some of this has to be about being responsive to what people want from me. Multiple folks here want a couple of shorter episodes per week.

[Kishkumen]

Blah, blah blah. Kish, I am not flattering anything, I am showing you LDS deification as taught by Joseph Smith. It is core LDS thought an doctrine. The bottom line is that Joseph offered eternal life and deification to women for sex. Yeah you had 25 minutes, and failed to nail down the core principles and history of LDS deification, which you could have expounded on in 5 or 6 minutes.

If your going to do a podcast on LDS deification, then at least accurately discuss what LDS deification demands, it is really that simple. You failed.

Look, Markk. I just don’t agree with you, man. You know it was more than just about sex, but that is what you choose to emphasize for your own reasons. Brian Hales says no sex. You say “all about sex.” You are both wrong. The evidence is right there in front of your eyes. You have been posting it. The problem is that you simply call whatever isn’t explicitly sex a mere tool to obtain sex. That’s your myopia and your problem, not mine. You can plaster all the quotes up you like, but it won’t change your failure to interpret the material.

I can do short podcast episodes about all kinds of aspects of LDS deification. All of them would be interesting and informative, as far as the format allows. The only person failing here is you. You fail to be polite, you fail to interpret the evidence, and you fail to accept that there are many ways to skin a cat.

If you had come here and said something like, “I wish you had said X,” or, “could you do another episode in which you address X,” that would be one thing. I might say, “yeah, I could talk more about that.” Instead, you choose to be a rude a-hole and reaffirm our negative impression of your historian’s chops. Thank God you don’t teach history. You’re dreadful.

[yellowstone123]

Better to be listened to than exhaustive.

I agree. Some of this has to be about being responsive to what people want from me. Multiple folks here want a couple of shorter episodes per week.

How about follow up videos of three to five minute, some shorter, others longer of highlights on parts that stand out. It could be what you thought was good or that another person pointed out.

[Kishkumen]

How about follow up videos of three to five minute, some shorter, others longer of highlights on parts that stand out. It could be what you thought was good or that another person pointed out.

The next thing I will do is turn old episodes into podcasts. Most YouTubers who teach from their experience recommend against shorts as a way to increase your viewing time. They recommend 15-30 minute episodes that produce the viewing time to get monetized (4000 hours in a year). Since many people here also wanted 15-25 minute episodes, that is what I settled on.

It also turns out that people who view shorts don’t generally watch the longer stuff, so making shorts does not create a pipeline to your long-form videos.

One limitation I have is the time I can devote to this. Each episode takes something like three hours to produce. Crazy, I know, but that is what it is from set up to break down and uploading time.

[Markk]

Zosimus wrote:

"I don’t get the sense that Joseph Smith would be so careless as to make up “core principles” (as you say) out of the blue so he could get ladies."

Thanks for the quote.

Well no one knows were he got all is ideas from, he stole many ideas for sure. What we know is that he dictated the ELC to Clayton a year or so before his murder. It was not canonized by the Brigamites though until decades after his death. We know for sure he promised exaltation to young women and their families if they entered in to this, often called the Law of the PH.

He claimed this was a direct revelation and had Clayton wrote in down word for word a year or so before he was murdered. So if he is stealing these ideas elsewhere, which I am sure he often did, then it just shows more that he is just making up the doctrine/s for his own reasons and gain.

This is a interesting quote from Claytons Journal

[July 12, 1843. Wednesday.] This A.M. I wrote a Revelation consisting of 10 pages on the order of the priesthood, showing the designs in Moses, Abraham, David and Solomon having many wives and concubines &c.42 After it was wrote Presidents Joseph and Hyrum presented it and read it to E[mma] who said she did not believe a word of it and appeared very rebellious. Joseph told me to Deed all the unincumbered lots to E[mma] and the children. He appears much troubled about E[mma].

[July 13, 1843. Thursday.] This A.M. Joseph sent for me and when I arrived he called me up into his private room with E[mma] and there stated an agreement they had mutually entered into. They both stated their feelings on many subjects and wept considerable. O may the Lord soften her heart that she may be willing to keep and abide by his Holy Law …

[July 15, 1843. Saturday.] Made Deed for 1/2 S[team] B[oat] Maid of Iowa from Joseph to Emma. Also a Deed to E[mma] for over 60 city lots …


Smith, George D.. An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton (p. 208). Signature Books. Kindle Edition.

Footnote 42 (bold) basically reads, for what ever reason Kindle won't let me copy it, that it took three hours and Joseph reviewed and stated it was correct, and that it was later published as 132. And, that the original copy was destroyed by Emma, but had made a copy and gave it to bishop Whitney.

This is first hand of the law and how it came to be, at least in the current form. And again it was claimed to be a revelation not extended teaching gathered from folks like Voltaire. I agree that he may have stolen idea from others, he has a history of that, such as with Adam Clarke....but in my opinion his motives were clear, it was about power, wealth and sex. Note that after fighting with Emma, in which she may have ripped up the original dictation, he deeded her 60 lots of land, showing that he was profiting by being the prophet, pun intended.

Also Bill Reel a few months back of so discussed how Joseph wife's often received deeded land, along with other gifts like watches....was Joseph bribing Emma here? Maybe? And remember 132 is deeply personal between Emma and Joseph, and threatening to her if she did not accept the sexual unions of plural wives, even virgins.

[Markk]

Kish wrote...Look, Markk. I just don’t agree with you, man. You know it was more than just about sex, but that is what you choose to emphasize for your own reasons. Brian Hales says no sex. You say “all about sex.” You are both wrong. The evidence is right there in front of your eyes. You have been posting it. The problem is that you simply call whatever isn’t explicitly sex a mere tool to obtain sex. That’s your myopia and your problem, not mine. You can plaster all the quotes up you like, but it won’t change your failure to interpret the material.

Well first of all Brian Hale states that Joseph had sex with several of his wifes. And that he did so with a painful heart.

132 starts out with what....sex, inquiring what, multiple wives and concubines, it gets real personal discussing things like taking virgins. And the fruit of all this is what? Concubines often are ignored, although Grant Palmer hits on that, it is interesting for sure.

When Joseph went to these women, and told them they can secure eternal life for them and their family if the married him, and then he had sex with them behind Emma's back, he was doing this why?

Kish wrote...I can do short podcast episodes about all kinds of aspects of LDS deification. All of them would be interesting and informative, as far as the format allows. The only person failing here is you. You fail to be polite, you fail to interpret the evidence, and you fail to accept that there are many ways to skin a cat.

If you had come here and said something like, “I wish you had said X,” or, “could you do another episode in which you address X,” that would be one thing. I might say, “yeah, I could talk more about that.” Instead, you choose to be a rude a-hole and reaffirm our negative impression of your historian’s chops. Thank God you don’t teach history. You’re dreadful.

I suggest you read my first post, it was fair and to a point. And to Moksha's question, and you even stated that you could be wrong, and that eternal sex could be a driving force. You just got butt hurt because I disagreed with you, re-read your posts, and Gad's. Do you want everyone to agree with you, and if they disagree with you, they have to in a way that you demand, as you just implied in your last post?

If you do not believe that section 132 is deeply rooted in sex, then I think you might want to do a little more reading about it, and look at the fruits of Joseph and how he used the ELC, the Law of the PH, for his gain. How he offered salvation for acceptance of it.

Don't pop a grape over this. If you want to believe that LDS deification is deeply rooted with the folks you discussed fine, but in my opinion you are missing the history behind the ELC and how it has assimilated into what it is today. And also in my opinion, you are giving a blind eye to the bad fruits of plural marriage and how it has damaged an unknown amount of women, so the husband can become a God, as Joseph taught.