It seems to me like they’re merely dodging the question.

The answer is technically correct. Joseph Smith didn’t really give a “full description or explanation” of what Kolob is.

I don’t know if this is the kind of PR questions the church was hoping (or maybe even preparing) to get with Mitt Romney’s run for president.

I don’t care one way or the other. He exists, where He hangs His coat doesn’t bother me at all.

But I’m pretty sure Joseph Fielding Smith probably waxed poetic on this and other matters celestial. Like man never walking on the moon.

Dan: But is that what the Church is really trying to do here?

Yes. We in fact know very little about Kolob and there seems to be no connection between the notion and the core doctrines of the church. I am baffled by the comments here hinting otherwise.

It’s consistent with the answer GHB gave to Larry King a couple of years ago on another doctrinal matter: “I don’t know that we teach that.”

Is it dishonest, or just a clarification of what we do know and don’t know.

Hinckley’s M.O. is to focus on the known or revealed and not the speculated.

I like the answers. And I think the path GBH takes as Queuno mentions is the right path to take. There is a line between what we think we know and what we actually know. I don’t think anyone has a very clear understanding of Kolob, at least authoritatively enough to address the public on the issue. So I think the answer was perfect.

Incidentally, I take the same approach to evolution/ID, to the priesthood ban, to Kolob, to Follett, to blood atonement, to a whole slew of topics.

Seriously, we don’t know. We just don’t know. What’s the use in believing in continuing relevation and living prophets unless we accept that there are things we haven’t been told yet?

Everything we know about Kolob is in a few verses on two facing pages of the Book of Abraham. Other than saying that Kolob is near to God, I don’t really know what else of significance we could say about the subject in answer to the question. It’s not even clear if Kolob is a planet or a star.

Even if they had quoted in full the paragraph or two on Kolob from the scriptures, it couldn’t have added very much understanding, and likely would have just given a misleading impression about the importance of Kolob to Mormons. Suppose Fox had asked 21 questions about Christianity, and two of the questions were about Gog and Magog. In that context, even a couple of paragraphs expounding on the subject would place undue weight on the importance Gog and Magog to Christianity. Neither Kolob nor Gog and Magog are topics that would likely come up if believers were asked to discuss the 21 most important concepts of their faith.

In essence, the Kolob questions were an invitation to give an answer that would have been more deceptive than enlightening. The church was wise not to take the bait.

The church I grew up in clearly taught that men and women could become gods and goddesses after death. I thought that this was the Mormon church, but maybe I have been somehow mistaken all these years.

And what GBH told Larry King we don’t know much about was whether our God was once a man, which is a somewhat different question.

The whole thing seems a little redundant given that all of the Mormon Church’s theology is out in the open at lds.org. All of their scriptures, magazines, lesson manuals and conference addresses can be found on that website. The magazines and conferences addresses contain 30 years of archive material. The website mormon.org contains simple and concise descriptions of Mormon theology.

Why ask 20 questions when a few minutes at the Church websites would give you all the answers you want.

For those of you now thinking, “but those websites don’t contain what the church teaches” – sorry, but yes, it is what it taught and what has been the teachings for at least the last 30 years. You might be able to make a case that something else was taught 100 before that, but then Christian doctrine in general has had a history of change since the time of Christ.

#4:
The answer is technically correct. Joseph Smith didn’t really give a “full description or explanation” of what Kolob is.

By that logic, Dan, FOX could have asked what the priesthood was, to which the PR department could have answered: “Joseph Smith did not provide a full description or explanation of priesthood.” In other words, there’s nothing in Joseph Smith’s teachings that can’t be dismissed in this way, by simply denying that he fully explained the subject.

ARJ, I think the accurate honest answer is “yes” (with, of course, some optional clarifying explanation.) The answer that was given reads to me like something between “no” and “not really.”

Geoff, much of what the church teaches leaves much undefined. Care to explain the atonement to me?

But if you like, it wouldn’t be hard for me to come up with a long list of new and old correlated sources that clearly teach that we are the offspring of God, and we can grow up to be gods just like him. I admit this teaching can be problematic in various ways, but nonetheless the church has been teaching it for a long time. We could start with “Gospel Principles” chapter 47, the manual used to indoctrinate new members in church teachings for the last three decades.

#23 Nick–I can relate to your point–to a point. I’m not particularly fond of things addressed in your post. However, because of the spiritual experiences I’ve been given these issues are entirely swallowed up and are meaningless to me. It is like a few ants at a outdoor feast. They get noticed but have zero impact on those enjoying the sumptuous meal.

Allow me to quote from the “Gospel Principles” manual, chapter 47.

2. They will become gods.
3. They will have their righteous family members with them
and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit
children will have the same relationship to them as we do
to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family.

I think that’s a little more official than any number of posts at “the Thang.”

You can’t put “they will become gods” in the manual then turn around and deny that you teach that they can become gods. That’s misleading and dishonest, no matter how you choose to interpret the words “become gods.”

I have no beef with those quotes ed. But are you able to explain exactly what the “They will become gods” entails? I don’t know of revelations unpacking those details.

There seems to be a major disconnect between what is taught in church on Sundays and what the church is willing to commit to as “official doctrine.” I either have to dismiss all such teachings as ‘folk doctrines’ and find an explanation for why the church doesn’t seem to be doing anything to clarify to its members what is folk doctrine and what isn’t, OR, I have to find an explanation for why the church is hesitant to publicly embrace its own doctrines. Either way, it doesn’t make sense to me.

ARJ: The last sentence:

“The goal is not to equal them or to achieve parity with them but to imitate and someday acquire their perfect goodness, love and other divine attributes.”

The goal is not to equal them? Since when? “Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father in Heaven is Perfect.”

I don’t know who wrote this answer, or why, but it’s wrong.

rrc: I either have to dismiss all such teachings as ‘folk doctrines’

You could call them that. Or you could simply admit that we don’t know for sure and we are awaiting further light and knowledge on A LOT of metaphysical questions and details.

MCQ: I don’t know who wrote this answer, or why, but it’s wrong.

Why do you assert that following the injunction in Matthew must mean that we will become “equal” with our Heavenly Father?

The fact that a self-styled defender of all things LDS can actually dismiss the Mormon doctrine of deification as “folk doctrine,” is perhaps the single best demonstration I could ever give, of why I am no longer a member of the LDS church.

Sorry, Nick, but you’re being a bit disingenuous. Do you really mean to stand here and tell us that’s why you’re a member of the LDS church? Really?

ARJ: I thought I answered your question in #29.

The accurate answer to the Fox News query is “yes.” The answer that was given is, in my reading, more like “not really.” You are free to disagree with my reading. But I suspect that if someone was told that and then read the Gospel Principles manual chapter 49, they’d feel like they’d been misled.

Incidentally, I put “Kolob” into the Search Engine on lds.org and asked it to look at everything. Most references are to the Utah city and the stake/wards associated with it. The next large reference source is the hymn. There are a few quotes from leaders referencing Abraham 3, and a few that reference the concept there (but in passing, not talking about it).

McConkie references it in a 1982 article, but he is just quoting the scriptural reference. Brigham Young references it in a sermon reprinted in 1971, but it’s more of a rehash of the scriptures.

There really is no doctrinal discussion on lds.org about Kolob. In fact, Brigham Young’s sermon could be construed that God does not live ON Kolob, just near it.

I’m having a hard time finding fault with the Kolob answers given by the PR flacks.

#42:
It seems you missed a little document called The Book of Abraham in your survey of teachings on Kolob, queno. Why would you skip the one canonized source?

Geoff,

#21,

Just because you heard things over and over in church growing up does not mean it was ever clearly defined and unpacked doctrine. We don’t really know very much about the details related to these things because not much has been clearly revealed by God. That’s why we sometimes refer to these sorts of popular speculations as folk doctrines.

But this one is spelled out in D&C 132.

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them.

It’s pretty clear there.

Um, in the scripture verse 20, that is “because they shall have all power” not “call power.” Sorry.

Dan,

See my #30.

Geoff,

What exactly does it mean to be gods? Verse 20 says quite a lot. We shall have no end. We will be eternal. We shall be above all. All things are subject unto us. We shall have all power. The angels will be subject unto us.

Paul writes in Romans that we shall be heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. What has Christ received? The scriptures tell us, all that the Father hath. Should we try to unpack what “all” means?

If other LDS church members don’t realize that fact yet then I am happy to let them know.

LOL! Yeah, because out of those millions of LDS, only you understand the doctrine correctly, right? Look, Geoff, you’re rapidly losing your “believing Mormon” creds in this game. You’ve chosen to reject the doctrine, and that’s fine. Your attempt to pretend it was never taught is simply slapstick comedy.

“Does Gospel Principles trump the LDS PR department?”

Absofreakinlutely. I can’t believe anyone would seriously say otherwise.

“In fact, Brigham Young’s sermon could be construed that God does not live ON Kolob, just near it.”

That would be because Kolob is a star, not a planet.

Geoff:

“Therefore, I think the answer given in this statement was right on”

Then you have a brilliant future ahead of you in PR. The only honest answer to this question would include the word: “yes.”

Gosh, Geoff…that would depend a lot on what you think “believe” means, and you’ve never given a full explanation of that, or “unpacked” it, have you?

MCQ – Yes is not the only honest answer because it is entirely unclear what the questioner means by the term god. On top of that it is largely unclear what our scriptures mean by the term god. So a simple yes is would not lead to greater understanding whatsoever — rather it would lead to greater misunderstanding. You think Jesus would have simply answered yes in those circumstances? Have you ever read his responses to loaded questions in the Bible. If I have a future in PR then I suppose Jesus was the ultimate PR man and I certainly don’t mind being more like him.

BiV – As long as the Book of Abraham remains canonized (hopefully forever) Kolob discussions and accusations and speculations will never go out of style.

Here’s some of what comes up in GospeLink when you select D&C 132:20 and then tell it to find books that refer to this verse or chapter:

The Mortal Messiah, Book 4, p. 109, Bruce R. McConkie:

Eternal life thus comes only to those who know the Father and the Son, and who know them in the sense of doing and experiencing what it is their eternal lot to do and experience. In this sense, no one can know God without possessing the knowledge and exercising the power vested in Deity, without creating as he creates, without fathering spirit children as he fathers his eternal progeny, without doing all that he does. Since eternal life is the name of the kind of life God lives, no man can possess it unless and until he becomes like his Eternal Father and has the same eternal powers that are resident in the Eternal One. Of those so obtaining it is written: “Then shall they be gods, cause they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.” (D&C 132:20.)

The Promised Messiah, p. 46, Bruce R. McConkie (discussing our view of the Savior):

Though he has now attained unto that exalted state in which he is described as being “from everlasting to everlasting” (D&C 61:1) and “from all eternity to all eternity” (D&C 39:1)—as will eventually be the description and state of all those who gain exaltation (D&C 132:20)—yet, as a conscious identity, he had a beginning. He was born, as were all the spirit children of the Father. God was his Father, as he is of all the rest. For him, as for all men—and he is the Prototype—the eternal spirit element that has neither beginning nor end, and is self-existent by nature, was organized into a spirit body. He was one of “the intelligences that were organized before the world was.” (Abr. 3:22.) He was and is the Firstborn of the Father.

The Promised Messiah, p. 166, Bruce R. McConkie (discussing Christ as Israel’s “Eternal One”):

Those who enter the order of celestial marriage have the potential of being “from everlasting to everlasting” (D&C 132:20), which means from one preexistence to the next. Theirs also is the state of exaltation, because they are married for time and all eternity, the designation all eternity being one which would be redundant were it not for the scriptural use of the word eternity as applying to the successive and recurring expanses of the creative periods. Israel’s prophets made it clear to that ancient people that their God was the Eternal One; our Lord’s meridian ministers asserted the same verity in describing him in their day; and those of us in the sheepfold that is latter-day Israel have received the revealed word reasserting the same truth for our day.

Doctrine and Covenants Commentary, p. 458 (discusses Section 76 and the vision of the resurrection of the just):

[Verse 58. They are gods, even the sons of God] Because of their Priesthood, their office, their possession of all things, they are gods, even the sons of God. Comp. Sec. 132:20.

Some take exception to the glorious doctrine here taught, that those who are called forth in the first resurrection are destined to become gods. There is no valid reason for objection. The expression “gods” is applied to men, in the Bible as well as here. The Lord said to Moses, “I have made thee a God to Pharaoh” (Ex. 7:1). The Psalmist declares that “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods” (82:1). And again, “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are the children of the Most High (Ps. 82:6). Here the judges in Israel are called gods, and they are rebuked for dishonoring their exalted position by judging unjustly. Our Lord was accused of blasphemy because He claimed Godhood. His answer was an appeal to this Psalm (John 10:34). The judges of old, He said, were called gods and sons of the Most High, by virtue of their calling; was it, then, blasphemy for Him to call Himself the “Son of God?” The doctrine, therefore, is perfectly Scriptural, and is denied only by those who, like the opponents of our Lord, do not know the Scriptures. Says Brigham Young:

“Jesus is the elder Brother, and all the brethren shall come in for a share with Him; for an equal share according to their works and calling, and they shall be crowned with Him. Do you read of any such thing as the Savior praying that the Saints may be one with Him, as He and the Father are one? The Bible is full of such doctrine, and there is no harm in it, as long as it agrees with the New Testament * * * The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming gods * * * How many will become thus privileged? Those who honor the Father and the Son; those who receive the Holy Ghost, and magnify their calling; and are found pure and holy; they shall be crowned in the presence of the Father and the Son” (Jour. of Dis., Vol. III., p. 93).

“The Scriptures are a mixture of very strange doctrines to the Christian world, who are blindly led by the blind. I will refer to another Scripture. ‘Now,’ says God, when He visited Moses in the bush * * * ‘Thou shalt be a god unto the children of Israel.’ God said, ‘Thou shalt be a god unto Aaron, and he shall be thy spokesman.’ I believe those gods that God reveals as gods to be sons of God, who exalt themselves to be gods even from before the foundation of the world, and are the only gods I have reverence for (Joseph Smith, Hist. of the Church, Vol. VI., p 478).

“Gods have an ascendancy over the angels, who are ministering servants. In the resurrection, some are raised to be angels; others are raised to become gods” (Joseph Smith, Hist. of the Church, Vol. V., p. 426).

Eve and The Fall, Bruce R. McConkie:

Speaking of the eternal state of exaltation and of those who then live in the married state, the Lord says. “Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.” (D&C 132:20. Italics added.)

What shall we say, then, of Eve—as an individual and as a generic name for all women who believe and obey as she did? Would we go far astray if we came up with such conclusions as the following?

Eve—a daughter of God, one of the spirit offspring of the Almighty Elohim—was among the noble and great in preexistence. She ranked in spiritual stature, in faith and devotion, in conformity to eternal law with Michael, who participated in the creation of the earth and who led the hosts of heaven when Lucifer and his rebels were cast out.

As she was at Michael’s side before the foundations of the earth, so she came with him into Eden. The two of them there performed for all men the inestimably great service called the fall of man. Thus, mortality, the begetting of children, the probations of this life, and the hope of eternal life and exaltation—all these become available to all of the children of the Father of us all.

After the fall, Eve continued to receive revelation, to see visions, to walk in the spirit. As Adam became the pattern for all his sons, so did Eve for all her daughters. And as they twain have gone on to exaltation and sit upon their thrones in glorious immortality, so may all, both male and female, who walk as they walked.

As there are no words to extol the greatness of the Ancient of Days unto whom thousands of thousands shall minister and before whom “ten thousand times ten thousand” shall stand in a day of judgment, so there is no language that can do credit to our glorious mother Eve.

Geoff:

“it is entirely unclear what the questioner means by the term god. On top of that it is largely unclear what our scriptures mean by the term god.”

That’s not true, Geoff. Words do have meanings. It can’t mean nothing. By any reasonable definition, the church teaches that men and women can become gods and goddesses.

“I certainly don’t mind being more like him.”

I thought you were just saying that you don’t believe you can be.

All I’m really getting at is that the last sentence:

“The goal is not to equal them or to achieve parity with them but to imitate and someday acquire their perfect goodness, love and other divine attributes.”

is misleading. I think that’s obvious. The goal is exactly that: to become as they are, to be perfect even as they are perfect. That is precisely what we teach; not just “imitation,” not just “attributes” we are striving to be gods.

MCQ By any reasonable definition, the church teaches that men and women can become gods and goddesses.

Alright, apparently you are a theologian who has figured out things that have eluded the rest of the world. Exactly what does being a god or goddess entail? I know lots of people in the church who have lots of different ideas of what it entails but maybe you have the one true answer.

I thought you were just saying that you don’t believe you can be.

Then you are completely misunderstanding my position.

The goal is exactly that: to become as they are, to be perfect even as they are perfect.

What does being perfect entail for you? Equal with the Father? Do we have to atone on a world in the future like Joseph implied both the Father and Son have done? Do we join the One God or do we become separate gods elsewhere in the universe in some polytheistic scheme?

You are acting like you understand these metaphysical mysteries so I would love to learn the answers from you if you do.

Geoff, again, I’m not saying that these concepts are completely defined. (What theological concept is?) But you have to be able to talk about things with people even when they are not completely defined. We apparently have no problem saying we believe in God, despite the fact that we don’t know everything about him. Same with saying Jesus is his son, that he atoned for the sins of the world, that he is a member of the Godhead, and the list goes on and on. You apparently feel that we can’t acknowledge our belief in a concept until we have defined precisely what all of the various mysteries might possibly be that are involved in that concept. That’s not a workable way to approach theology, unfortunately. Not to mention the fact that we have taught this “undefined” concept to members and investigators of all ages for decades. If we were to follow your idea, we would neveranswer any questions about our faith or beliefs, because they are not completely defined. That’s not a very open, honest or beneficial approach.

MCQ,

I’m guessing you must not have read my #53. I believe my position is pretty clear there. (Hint: You have my position all wrong in #68)

Geoff, I answered #53.

#68 is an answer to your #66, which says we have to have the “one true answer” of what these things mean. We don’t. We just have to answer questions on their own terms: Do we teach that men and women can become gods and goddesses? Answer: yes, we do (add additional explanatory material from NT already included in the answer, leave out misleading final sentence, the end.) Why would that be more confusing than the answer that was given? I think it’s vastly superior, because it’s simply more honest.

Make that “becoming a god”

I’m glad you think the answer they gave was a “yes.” My whole point is that most people, especially those outside the church, will not see it that way. That’s why it’s misleading. They will see it as a “no.” Let’s watch the fall-out from this Q&A this week and see if I’m right.

MCQ,

I think there’s a difference between an answer that is deceptive, and an answer that is cautious and prudent. The latter answer will take into account the limitations of our understanding, but I don’t think there is any effort to deceive there.
On my mission, when I encountered questions about deification teachings, I usually pointed to Revelations 3:

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

I think this is one of those scriptural allegories that supports this position without saying the words “We can become Gods,” and the Church’s answer to Fox is similar. I thought it was a fantastic answer that is more in the scriptural tradition.

Okay, found the meaning of Geoff J’s use of “unpack” at:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=unpack

See the 3RD entry, and cast your vote.

The discussions would be much more interesting if those who participate could control their lower impulses to attack and demean one another.

I don’t care where God lives. Which is kind of a dumb argument anway since God created everything, He can live anywhere He wants.

I don’t care about the God/Goddess thing. I think it’s true, but since we are looking through a glass, darkly, what we think that means could mean a whole different thing altogether. I don’t think it’s a folk legend, I just don’t think we have a clue about what life after this is going to be like. Restful, I hope.

Jared’s right, simmer down. I just realized how I sound when I threaten to punch people. Not that anybody did, but if you guys were face to face, somebody’d have a black eye.

Long run, this argument is irrelevant. If we set our sights on Jesus, becoming like Him, as someone else said, following Him and serving Him, these little quibbles don’t mean much. He knows what He’s doing.

Nick: I see you’ve now changed your tune slightly

Where did I whistle another tune? I think it is more likely that you jumped to all sourts of conclusion about what I meant and are now disappointed to see what it really is because my position is more defensible than you first imagined.

Are you sure you really want me to tell you what I think you believe, Geoff?

Hehehe. I’m sure I don’t give a rip, but I’m guessing that won’t stop you from telling me anyway…

I think you’re ultimately embarassed, Geoff, by many of the more unusual teachings of Mormonism.

Heeey Dr. Nick! Misdiagnosis again. Rather, my position is something along the lines of this post. That is, it has become clear to me that our prophets and prophets speculate and guess about theological issues more than most of us Mormons initially realized. So unless there is an explicit stated revelation on a subject, I now take most theological speculations from any source with a grain of salt. We just don’t know the answers on lots of details and I am perfectly ok with that because in the end I _do know_ what God has told me personally and that includes Him telling me that He is personally involved in directing this church.

But since we’re playing the pop psychology game with each other, here’s my armchair diagnosis of your reason for leaving the church: You wanted out of a hetero marriage and into a gay relationship and when you discovered that a lot of your favorite Mormon folk doctrines weren’t universally supported as facts among the brethren that seemed like the perfect escape hatch for you.

Isn’t this fun!? (And don’t worry Dan Ellsworth, I mean all of this in the nicest possible way.)

BTW Nick — Why on earth do you think I’m a big Mitt Romney fan? You keep trying to bring that up as if it will hurt my feelings or something. I’m not. I think he is ok and all but I just don’t get into politics that much. Maybe you have me mixed up with Geoff B. over at M* or something?

I had you mixed up with him. I was thinking “This is the guy who got really mad at me (I deserved it) for fighting rather tackily with some guy on Millennial Star.”

Whoever responded to those questions wasn’t really up to the job. He set back the whole “if you want to know about Mormons, then ask Mormons and not their enemies” line. Among the lame non-answers:Q: What specifically does the Mormon Church say about African-Americans and Native Americans?

A: Mormons believe that all mankind are sons and daughters of God and should be loved and respected as such. The blessings of the gospel are available to all.

Native Americans? Just more of God’s children.

Frankly, I saw the answers as simply contempt for the questions. I didn’t look at them from the position of seriously answering them. In fact, I applauded the quick, easy, and basically dismissive way they were answered. Anti- and Ex- Mormons might have loved the questions, but I found that the questions were sloppy and irrelavant. Personally, if I was the PR person I would have ignored them altogether. I mean TWO questions about Kolob? Give me a break. That is a sign of bias and bad journalism and not curiosity.

I side with the statement being more honest that a statement of “yes” or “no”. It is more honest to spend time acknowledging the presence of the doctrine, but that there are limits to the understanding of doctrine than simply stating “yes” as if acknowledging practice and understanding of the doctrine. That is the goal of this kind of disclosure, I’m sure.

And it’s more than apparent by simply examining this thread that there is limited understanding of doctrine. Something never to be ashamed of. It is more shameful to assume full knowledge. (Somewhat Socratic, no?)

#95

“No”

I love that, John, that’s the best way to put it. I thought all religions thought that. Maybe it’s the pre-existence and the nature of our relationships there that trouble other faiths.

But doesn’t say something in the Bible about Satan being a son of God? I know there’s that “how art thou fallen, son of the morning.”

Doesn’t that resonate with love for Satan, really? It’s the sort of thing I might say to a child I loved dearly who had disappointed me terribly and self destructed.

KLC(#97),

Thanks for the single most retarded comment so far on this thread (and that’s saying something honey)

KLC,

The fact that Geoff J has actually thought long and hard about this and knows that there are a variety of possible answers makes his thinking muddled?

MCQ confuses “like” and “equal” and you think he’s some sort of debate champion for it?

I need to stop or I’ll have to delete my own comments.

MCQ: Any answer to that question that does not say “yes” and appears to say “no” is wrong.

My primary disagreement with your take is that I don’t think the answer given appears to say no at all. To me it appears to say yes quite clearly.

KLC (#105),

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk. Nice comeback. (Seriously, I laughed)

Geoff-thank you for consistently and cogently defending your position. I couldn’t agree more with what you have said and what the PR answer said.

I guess you can count me as another Mormon who is “insecure” about their faith. As a convert from Catholicism, accepting the “man may become gods” doctrine has been a difficult stumbling block to my testimony. Even the text in the GP manual that has been cited gives me pause. But I love the definition given in the PR answer. And I love it because it leaves open the meaning of “gods” to interpretation. And that is, after all, exactly why I joined this church and why I stay in this church–personal revelation. Leaders give us the basics but many things haven’t been “unpacked” and this gives us the great and wonderful privilege to seek understanding for ourselves.

That is why I actually like church leaders stepping away from more detailed analysis of doctrines. I don’ think this means, as Nick thinks it means, that the Church is denying its doctrines. I think the church is being more clear about what we do and do not know. And leaving the rest up to us. Again, I love this.

MCQ,

If you think every yes/no question merits only a yes/no questionanswer…

I give up. You’re the one that was harping on “equal” in #34 and now you mock me for it.

A careful reading of the answer makes it clear that they aren’t saying “no” and they aren’t trying to give anyone that impression. They are trying to provide an answer that is both concise and accurate. I think they did a fine job.

You’re now free to tilt at this windmill without me.

Katie – Thanks and very well said. Our church is much richer with people like you in it. A little humility on our part when it comes to admitting what we don’t know yet opens a lot of doors and relieves a lot of stress in my opinion.

annegb – KLC is a woman?

Nasamomdele: DKL,… it sounds like you discount the writings in Abraham flat out…

I reject a literal interpretation of Abraham’s astronomy, and I’m guessing that most Mormons who think about it do, too. For example, it’s doubtful that Mormons who study astronomy have been troubled by the lack of correspondence between modern astrophysics and astronomy and the description in The Book of Abraham.

Here’s a quote by Bertrand Russell that I’ve often sighted in the past. It describes the situation nicely:

As soon as we abandon our own reason, and are content to rely upon authority, there is no end to our troubles. Whose authority? The Old Testament? The New Testament? The Koran? In practice, people choose the book considered sacred by the community in which they are born, and out of that book they choose the parts they like, ignoring the others. At one time, the most influential text in the Bible was: “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Now-a-days, people pass over this text, in silence if possible; if not, with an apology. And so, even when we have a sacred book, we still choose as truth whatever suits our own prejudices. No Catholic, for instance, takes seriously the text which says that a bishop should be the husband of one wife.

This is no less true of Mormonism than it is of other religions, and there are a variety of devices that thinking readers bring to bear in order to “choose as truth whatever suits our own prejudices.” Perhaps the most utilized device involves offering a figurative interpretation of difficult or unlikely scriptural passages. I’m reminded of the famous exchange from The Life of Brian, when someone on the outskirts of the crowd at the Sermon on the Mount mishears one of the beatitudes:

Gregory: What was that?

Man listening to Sermon on the Mount: I think it was “Blessed are the cheesemakers.”

Gregory’s Wife: Ahh, what’s so special about the cheesemakers?

Gregory: Well, obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

You know, a thought just occurred to me. I wonder if this questioning, the perhaps evolvement of our general authorities, isn’t just God’s will at work. Perhaps there was a need for rigidity and now we are being called on to rely on our personal faith more.

Just a thought.

Katie (110),
I so agree with you- I really like the Church’s responses here. I see them as being distressing to theological conservatives and liberals alike, but there are a lot of us in between the two extremes who think the Church’s answers demonstrated a healthy restraint on what we claim as doctrine.
Folks, there are a lot of “Do you believe…” questions where yes or no are just not good or accurate answers. It was easy for me to say a simple yes or no to a lot of these things in years past, but when I was a child I thought like a child, and so forth.

#88:
Yes, I thought you were the same “Geoff” who keeps trumpeting Romney elsewhere in the bloggernacle. I apologize for the confusion. I appreciate your explanation of where you’re coming from. I think you and I have very different ideas of what constitutes an “explicit stated revelation” in Mormonism, but I’m sure reasonable minds can disagree on that. For example, I see the King Follett Discourse as an explicit statement of revelation, even though it’s not in canonized, versified form. From what you’re saying, I gather you would consider the King Follett Discourse to be Joseph’s speculation, beyond the revelations he received. Is that a fair characterization?

As for your suspicions regarding the reason for my leaving the LDS church, I have been very open about how that process played out. I understand that for some, it is almost reflexive to assume that a person who leaves the LDS church does so because they “desire to sin” and thus “find an excuse.” From your context, I suspect you’re just being snarky, and not actually falling into that sort of unsupported thinking. Feel free to correct me if I overestimate you, however.

#91:
Nick, correct me if I am wrong, but here in the Church you found a lot of interesting doctrine, but you never discovered the reality of Christ and His atonement. At least that is what I have gathered from things you have said here in the past.

That would be wrong, Dan. I found Mormonism, including the doctrine of the atonement, to be far more than “a lot of interesting doctrine.” It is true, as I have said elsewhere, that I personally no longer believe in the christian/Mormon concept of atonement, particularly as a transactional process.

#94 Jettboy:
I agree with you on the questions, and frankly, I have to wonder how much worse the other questions were, that LDS PR refused to answer. I wish they had chosen not to answer the Kolob questions. I’m surprised they did so, and personally troubled by the way they answered. That said, let me point to something positive. I think the answer they gave on the question about priesthood garments was just about perfect.

If we go by Abr 3 exactly how do we tell if Kolob is allegorical or not? And I say this as someone who tends to think we ought assume writers took things as historical even if we question their ability to provide an objective history. (i.e. they write from their perspective)

However Abr 3 clearly is an allegorical use of some astronomical ideas to illustrate a point about degrees of greatness. Most probably it reflects a geocentric astronomy and in any case it’s not clear what is going on. Throw in the notes on Fac. 2 and things get even odder. Are we speaking of planets in the sense of a physical astronomy of the heavens or is something else (planes of existence) being talked about? It’s not clear and there are good arguments on either side.

Regarding Kolob being a sun we should also note (as I’m sure Nick knows) that there was a belief in the 19th century that celestial beings lived on suns and that the earth will one day be a sun. As I recall BY even taught folks were living on our sun. We discount these as interpolations from the fragmentary notes we have. I know Nick adopts a kind of odd approach to Joseph where nothing he taught was speculation. But at best very little is revealed here – even if you read all the masonic inspired interpolations of the Egyptian documents.

While my favorite theory is the Kolob = Sirius and the whole thing is astronomy used as an allegory, I’d be the first to recognize that there’s a lot of ways to read the data.

ARJ, not to tilt at windmills, but just to corect the record:

“If you think every yes/no question merits only a yes/no questionanswer…”

I don’t. I think I made that clear. You can add all he explanation you want, (and I approve of the answer except for the last sentence, which I think is misleading). I could live with an answer that didn’t say “yes,” as long as it doesn’t appear to say “no,”
as this one does. Remember that we’re talking to non-mormons here. Read the answer with that in mind. Tell me again that you don’t think they will interpret this as a “no.” I think they most certainly will.

DKL, everyone knows they ended up in Pellucidar.

KLC: And yet I don’t think any LDS would hesitate to give a vigorous and unequivocal yes as the answer to the question, “Do Mormons believe in the atonement?”

The problem is that this is not an apples to apples question. The question asked was “Does the Mormon Church believe its followers can become “gods and goddesses” after death?” A comparable question touching on soteriology might be “Do Mormons believe in salvation by grace?” What would the proper yes or no answer be to that? We could say yes because we believe we cannot be saved without the grace of God. But our critics would call us liars because will are big on free-will and they often come in with Calvinist assumptions about total depravity and the “unconditional election of grace”. So a more nuanced answer would be needed based on the preconceived notions and assumptions of the audience. Anything less leads to less mutual understanding not more. When a Calvinist asks “Do you believe you can become a god” they mean something very different than we mean by the term god. For one thing, they believe is means a being who can create worlds ex nihilo. We don’t mean that at all so a simple “yes” would be egregiously misleading to a person with those assumptions. When we combine that with the massive gaps in our understanding of what deification actually entails, it is most honest and safe to answer as best we can using terms that the audience can understand. That is what I see in the answer given.

MCQ: Tell me again that you don’t think they will interpret this as a “no.” I think they most certainly will.

They will hopefully in part interpret it as “No, we don’t believe we will ever become a being who creates universes ex nihilo.” That is entirely true. Further, they might see what we mean when we talk about being “gods” in the answer — which is that we become like the Godhead in character, and as Jesus stated in John 17, we become “one” with God. To us, being one with God is what becoming a god mostly means. “Becoming a god” means such different things to us and them that this amounts to almost nothing more than a trap question in this context. So the answer was honest and correct and shrewd in my opinion.

Further, they might see what we mean when we talk about being “gods” in the answer — which is that we become like the Godhead in character, and as Jesus stated in John 17, we become “one” with God.

Geoff, this is honestly the first time, in my 25+ years of association with Mormonism, that I have ever heard an active LDS member claim that becoming gods really means becoming “like the Godhead in character.”

Geoff,

they might see what we mean when we talk about being “gods” in the answer — which is that we become like the Godhead in character,

I have to agree with Nick. While John 17 talks about becoming “one” with God it does not state what kind of beings we will be as one with God. Just angels? Angels can be “one” with God. Heck, in Jesus’ prayer, he implores that his Apostles and those who listen to his Apostles be one in this life, not necessarily in the eternities. Secondly, D&C 132:20 speaks in pretty bold terms that we are to become gods with all power.

Wasn’t there an interesting post about the hiding place of the Ten Tribes on Blogger of Jared a year or so ago? :)

Speak for yourself, annegb. Some of us more average members are headed toward the androgynous mediocrity that’s officially known as The Terrestrial Kingdom.

The TK won’t be so bad. We won’t be able to have sex but there will be beer there.

Guys,

Don’t go for mediocrity! Remember, when you are gods yourselves you can create your own world with whatever kind of beer you desire! :)

Nick – You don’t think we need to become like God in our character to become “gods”? You may be the first (current or former) Mormon I ever heard assert such a thing.

I didn’t say that at all, Geoff. Rather, I was pointing to your earlier comment:

they might see what we mean when we talk about being “gods” in the answer — which is that we become like the Godhead in character

This comment appears to limit the meaning of “becoming gods” to becoming “like the Godhead in character.” While such may be part of becoming gods, you would be unique among active LDS in making that portion into the whole.

Oh, David, David, David, no, most of us are going to “make it.” Whatever in the hell that means.

I just barely figured it out! Ask yourself, are you doing the best you can to be the best kind of person you believe a good person should be?

Hey, there you go! I don’t even care if I sound born again (I am, the only “born again, evangelical Mormon)—I think the majority of the inhabitants of the earth qualify.

I honest to Gosh do. I just figured it out. I wish I could write it better.

Now, frankly, and as I’ve said often, my idea of “making it” doesn’t include raising children for eternity. I don’t mind the thought of having Bill puttering alongside me, but I ain’t raising children.

Maybe I’ll change my mind. But for now, I love the Lord, I am honestly trying (NOT achieving, notice) to follow and emulate Jesus Christ. I have the added bonus of temple blessings, etc., but that’s only a formality. Red tape, as it were. And I believe all good peoples will have that opportunity.

You guys, the gospel, the good news, isn’t in the details. This minutiae of where God is, or what will happen, you can argue till the cows come home.

TStevens, that’s exactly the sort of thing I’d expect the press to pick up on and make hay about. That’s much weirder than this “Garden of Eden/Zion in Jackson County, Missouri” thing that many evangelicals are fixated on.

Ann, as long as I don’t have to drink the swill that they serve in the Telestial Kingdom, I’m happy.

John Mansfield, I agree with you.

annegb, I’m glad you think I’m going to heaven. I only hope God share’s your views.

Seems Romney follows our church’s pathetic answer techniques when addressing questions on morality.

CBS asked all the main candidates about adultery but only Romeny gave such a ‘non-answer’, mixing adultery with divorce, that Couric had to asked him twice. Every other candidate answered the question with, I think, Edwards & Huckabee giving the best answers.

If you doubt me just watch it yourselves:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3637812n

My little sister remembers my hero worship of King and swears up and down that I made her stand and put her hand on her heart while we were watching Martin Luther King’s funeral on TV.

Which isn’t possible, since we were living in different cities at the time. I think she’s confused that time with Kennedy’s death. I was 11 when Kennedy died and that’s the sort of child I was, bossing my sisters around in highly moral ways.

So she remembers one part of the story correctly, but not the other. Isn’t that a possibility?

I think Romney just sucks at extemporaneous speaking.

anne,

I think the bigger problem Romney faces with this MLK flap is that his answers to the charge that he really didn’t “see” his dad and MLK really suck. Wasn’t Clinton infamous for “depends on the definition of “(insert word here)”. Does Romney really want to be in the same category as the Bill meister?

Seriously, he could have just answered, “Look I think I got it wrong. I remembered seeing them, but alas it probably wasn’t the case.” There’s something refreshing about honesty.

Yeah, Dan, I know. That’s the kind of thing Clinton could pull off. I think that certain finesse that Romney seems to be missing (as was his father, I recall) will bite him you know where.

Which troubles me, now that I’ve made my decision. But really, my decision is, if he survives this dogfight, he deserves my vote. So, it’s all good.

annegb,

Not to deflate you, but given that you live in Utah, your vote most likely doesn’t matter. Don’t feel too badly, most of your fellow citizens are in the same boat. There are only a few states that are evenly divided enough to matter.

On the other hand, if he does get the GOP nomination, he may just be moderate enough to win the general election.

IMO, George W. Bush is pretty moderate, overall. He spends like a Democrat, and given or compromised away much of what the dems have wanted. As gov of Texas, he was known as a big compromiser, to the point of giving away too much, just to get along.

Over the course of my life, if you look at the overall long term picture, the republicans go along with the democrats almost 100% of the time… it just takes them 20 years after the dems first ask/demand it before they go along. So the direction the country has headed, politically, has been pretty clear and in one direction, towards socialism.

So, IMO, there’s not much of a difference between the two major parties. They’re both on the same track, going to the same place, with the dems 20 years out in front.

Bookslinger,

The last Utah poll I saw had Romney with about 60% of the republican primary vote. All that could change but the idea of him not winning Utah is currently laughable.

Romney is the Mormon John Kerry. And maybe MLK will be his Swift Boat moment.

As for Bush – my arrival in Texas coincided with his first campaign against St. Ann Richards (no joke, even the republicans here still love her). Bush is best when he has to compromise. Fortunately for him, his first term forced him to work with a Democratic legislature. Things go downhill when he’s working with a majority.

Maybe it’s true that the first Mormon to win the White House will be a Democrat.

“Romney is the Mormon John Kerry. And maybe MLK will be his Swift Boat moment.”

I don’t think Romney is as smarmy and effete as Kerry, but I definitely see your point. That’s a very interesting observation. I think Romney has that Kerry-type “democrat style hair” too. Or maybe that’s just because both are from Mass, and it’s a regional thing.

annegb: you usually vote democratic? Argh! Well, I still like you, sort of, mostly.

caca: don’t forget his flip on 2nd amendment issues. I was very very disappointed when I read that the NRA actually rated his Massachussetts democratic opponent more favorably than him! Either that opponent was very pro-gun for a Democrat (which would have been extremely pro-gun for a Massachussetts dem), or Romney was very anti-gun.

Being from a Jewish background, and aware of European 20th century history, I believe that right-to-keep-and-bear-arms issues are a bellwether for statism. I might even vote for a pro-gun Baptist democrat over an anti-gun Mormon republican.

Caca: Actually, I think Romney is more electable in the general election than McCain. McCain has his own skeletons on POW/MIA issues (Bobby Garwood, and more), and the Keating 5 thing. Plus, McCain has a rep for being a jerk in person. He’s just not a nice guy. And, as much as I’m a fan of the 2nd Amendment, I’m a bigger fan of the 1st Amendment, and his McCain-Feingold bill is very anti-1st Amendment.

Caca: Have we found out if Romney Sr. ever did march (or at least walk) with MLK? I can forgive Mitt for confusing what he did with his dad, with what he saw his dad do (even if it was just via tv/video/film), when it was over 40 years ago.

166, 167-

That Mormon would have to be Pro-Choice. If Romney has taught us anything, it is that when you’re Mormon, saying you’re pro-choice and then acting pro-choice are very different.

“Thus, I Abraham , talked with the Lord…and he told me of the works which his hands had made…and I could not see the end thereof…he said…this is Shinehah, which is the Sun…and Kolob, which is Star…and Olea, which is the Moon…and Kokaubeam, which signifies Stars…Kolob is the greatest of all the Kokaubeam”. – Pearl of Great Price, The Book of Abraham, Translated from Papyrus by Joseph Smith, 1878 edition.

“And I Abraham…saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God…and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order of that upon which thou standest. And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord.” –Pearl of Great Price, The Book of Abraham, Translated from Papyrus by Joseph Smith, 1878 edition.

My new book “Nail of Heaven: LDS Cosmology, Metaphysics and Science” deals with the issue of Kolob and its identification. I believe in the Galactic Center theory but I think the other theories actually do have something to add into the truth of the matter. For those interested, here is a link to the book on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Nail-Heaven-Cosmology-Metaphysics-Science/dp/1456508229