Banned Mormon Cartoon

[Dan From Smithville]

The basic ideas expressed in the video are those that I have heard most of my life regarding the history and philosophy of Mormons. I have been told that Mormons believe that upon death they can become god of their own world. Is this true?

I know that Mormons "save" the souls of those that have died without every having been Mormon. At least in a ritualistic way, making them post mortem Mormons on paper. I have seen this turn up in my own genealogy. Presumably, some member married into or was converted to Mormonism and saved their family members. The side benefit is that Mormons have developed a very large data set on family histories. Useful in its own right, even if only for establishing genealogies.

 

[Katzpur]

The basic ideas expressed in the video are those that I have heard most of my life regarding the history and philosophy of Mormons.

Yes, I think the portrayal of LDS doctrine in that video is pretty much how most non-Mormons would explain it. It's a far cry, though, from how we would explain it. In this case, fiction is truly stranger than the truth.

I have been told that Mormons believe that upon death they can become god of their own world. Is this true?

I'd say that's a very simplistic and, consequently, not a particularly accurate way of putting it. But, there is a small element of truth in it as well. Allow me to explain...

We believe, as the Bible states, that we are the offspring of God and that He is the Father of our spirits. We believe that we are more than just His "creations"; rather, we were created in His image, after His likeness. With respect to becoming gods of our own world, what we actually believe is a doctrine called "Eternal Progression." The same general idea (Deification, i.e. "Eternal Progression" in LDS parlance) was clearly taught in the early days of Christianity -- not by random heretical sects, but by noted Church fathers:

Irenaeus: “If the Word became a man, it was so men may become gods. Do we cast blame on Him (God) because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods?”
Clement: “The Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.”
Saint Justin: "[Men are] deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest.”
Athanasius: “The Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods. He became man that we might be made divine.”
Augustine: “But He that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. For he has given them power to become the sons of God. If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.”

In much more recent years, the noted Christian scholar, C.S. Lewis, said, “The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were 'gods' and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said." (Underlining is mine.)

Here is an article from the official LDS website called Becoming Like God. It's fairly comprehensive, but long too awfully long and very understandable. (Incidentally, you have to click on "Read more" at the end of the second paragraph on the page to get to the rest of the article.) I hope people will take the time to check it out. At any rate, we do not believe that "upon death [we Mormons] can become god of [our] own world." On the other hand, we do believe that with God, all things are possible and that if it is His will that His children eventually become like Him, it will most certainly happen.

I know that Mormons "save" the souls of those that have died without every having been Mormon. At least in a ritualistic way, making them post mortem Mormons on paper. I have seen this turn up in my own genealogy. Presumably, some member married into or was converted to Mormonism and saved their family members. The side benefit is that Mormons have developed a very large data set on family histories. Useful in its own right, even if only for establishing genealogies.

Actually, we don't believe there is any ritual in the world that can "make a person Mormon" and no one other than Jesus Christ can "save the soul" of someone else.

Here's an analogy I've used to explain the practice of posthumous proxy baptism in the past:

Let's say I was crazy about Carrie Underwood (which is not the case, incidentally) and you really didn't care for country music at all. I knew that she was coming to town to do a concert. When I bought my ticket, I bought an extra one for you (without you asking me to). I then mailed it to you and told you that I really thought you might want to reconsider and go to the concert. I was sure you'd end up liking it and I didn't want you to miss the opportunity. After all, I'd already bought the ticket. At any rate, you would have a choice. You could either decide to use the ticket and go to the concert or toss it in the garbage, thinking, "Katzpur knows I don't like country music. She just wasted a lot of money on something she should know I wouldn't want."

That's how we see proxy baptism. It's an ordinance (i.e. sacrament) we perform for someone who has died, believing that if a person can change religions during his mortal life, he can do the same during the period of time between his death and his resurrection. The baptism itself accomplishes nothing on its own -- just as my purchase of an expensive concert ticket and the time it took me to mail it accomplished nothing if you chose not to use it. If the deceased person accepts the baptism, a true conversion has taken place. If he doesn't, it's just like your throwing the concert ticket in the trash.

We don't have any way of knowing who accepts these proxy baptisms and who doesn't, and we do not increase our membership numbers by the proxy baptisms we do. I realize that's just a nutshell explanation of the doctrine, but I don't want to bore you with any more than that unless you want to delve deeper into the doctrine.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, I think the portrayal of LDS doctrine in that video is pretty much how most non-Mormons would explain it. It's a far cry, though, from how we would explain it. In this case, fiction is truly stranger than the truth.

I'd say that's a very simplistic and, consequently, not a particularly accurate way of putting it. But, there is a small element of truth in it as well. Allow me to explain...

We believe, as the Bible states, that we are the offspring of God and that He is the Father of our spirits. We believe that we are more than just His "creations"; rather, we were created in His image, after His likeness. With respect to becoming gods of our own world, what we actually believe is a doctrine called "Eternal Progression." The same general idea (Deification, i.e. "Eternal Progression" in LDS parlance) was clearly taught in the early days of Christianity -- not by random heretical sects, but by noted Church fathers:

Irenaeus: “If the Word became a man, it was so men may become gods. Do we cast blame on Him (God) because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods?”
Clement: “The Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.”
Saint Justin: "[Men are] deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest.”
Athanasius: “The Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods. He became man that we might be made divine.”
Augustine: “But He that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. For he has given them power to become the sons of God. If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.”

In much more recent years, the noted Christian scholar, C.S. Lewis, said, “The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were 'gods' and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said." (Underlining is mine.)

Here is an article from the official LDS website called Becoming Like God. It's fairly comprehensive, but long too awfully long and very understandable. (Incidentally, you have to click on "Read more" at the end of the second paragraph on the page.) I hope people will take the time to check it out. At any rate, we do not believe that "upon death [we Mormons] can become god of [our] own world." On the other hand, we do believe that with God, all things are possible and that if it is His will that His children eventually become like Him, it will most certainly happen.

Actually, we don't believe there is any ritual in the world that can "make a person Mormon" and no one other than Jesus Christ can "save the soul" of someone else.

Here's an analogy I've used to explain the practice of posthumous proxy baptism in the past:

Let's say I was crazy about Carrie Underwood (which is not the case, incidentally) and you really didn't care for country music at all. I knew that she was coming to town to do a concert. When I bought my ticket, I bought an extra one for you (without you asking me to). I then mailed it to you and told you that I really thought you might want to reconsider and go to the concert. I was sure you'd end up liking it and I didn't want you to miss the opportunity. After all, I'd already bought the ticket. At any rate, you would have a choice. You could either decide to use the ticket and go to the concert or toss it in the garbage, thinking, "Katzpur knows I don't like country music. She just wasted a lot of money on something she should know I wouldn't want."

That's how we see proxy baptism. It's an ordinance (i.e. sacrament) we perform for someone who has died, believing that if a person can change religions during his mortal life, he can do the same during the period of time between his death and his resurrection. The baptism itself accomplishes nothing on its own -- just as my purchase of an expensive concert ticket and the time it took me to mail it accomplished nothing if you chose not to use it. If the deceased person accepts the baptism, a true conversion has taken place. If he doesn't, it's just like your throwing the concert ticket in the trash.

We don't have any way of knowing who accepts these proxy baptisms and who doesn't, and we do not increase our membership numbers by the proxy baptisms we do. I realize that's just a nutshell explanation of the doctrine, but I don't want to bore you with any more than that unless you want to delve deeper into the doctrine.

Thank you for the information. I'll peruse it further and return with any questions or comments I may have. In the mean time, I had a few initial comments below.

Were those early Christians talking about men actually become gods or like god? I'm not sure that these metaphors are equivalent to saying that we would become gods and rulers of our own planets. Is the depicted portion of Mormon doctrine regarding rule of other planets correct?

Unlike the Carrie Underwood ticket--which I would accept with anticipation--the proxy baptisms are published. This seems to me, to go a step beyond offering something to an individual for their personal acceptance.

 

[Skwim]

Here you go

Thanks. It does support some of the claims.

,

 

[Katzpur]

Thank you for the information. I'll peruse it further and return with any questions or comments I may have. In the mean time, I had a few initial comments below.

Were those early Christians talking about men actually become gods or like god?

I think there's a fine line between "being a god" and "being like god." To me, there's little difference. I should note, however, that we don't believe that we will ever be equal to God or that we will ever cease to worship Him as God or that we could become anything He doesn't want us to become. I see our "godhood" being pretty much as C.S. Lewis put it: "a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale)."

I'm not sure that these metaphors are equivalent to saying that we would become gods and rulers of our own planets. Is the depicted portion of Mormon doctrine regarding rule of other planets correct?

I'd say, no to that, and here's my reasoning. If sometime a few trillion years from now, someone who is now living on planet Earth progresses -- according to God's will and through His grace -- to become a god (i.e. a being with unlimited knowledge and power, capable of creating a completely new human family), I would think that such a being would have little use for a hand-me-down planet from this day and age. Instead, it would make more sense to me that he would be fully capable of creating worlds of his own. Just so that you know, though, I don't know of a single solitary Latter-day Saint who really even gives all that much thought to becoming a god. Like everybody else, we're mostly just working on being good people in the here and now.

Unlike the Carrie Underwood ticket--which I would accept with anticipation--the proxy baptisms are published. This seems to me, to go a step beyond offering something to an individual for their personal acceptance.

Yes, but let me explain why. We have been given very specific instructions that we are to perform proxy baptisms solely for our own ancestors (which is why we are so interested in genealogy). There have, in the past, been instances in which people have knowingly disregarded these instructions, but they do exist and we are all aware of them. With this in mind, I might do some genealogical research and come across a great-great-great grandmother who died in the late 1700s. I decide to submit the paperwork identifying her as my ancestor and request to be baptized on her behalf. After I've stood as proxy for her and been baptized for her, that information is recorded. The Church's genealogical records will in fact indicate that she has received the ordinance (i.e. sacrament) of baptism. This is simply done so that another one of her by now thousands of descendants who also happens, like me, to be LDS doesn't go through the time and effort to do the work all over again. There is no need for fifty different individuals to all stand as proxy for one deceased individual, each one receiving baptism for that one person.

So yes, "the proxy baptisms are published," so to speak. But not one of the over 16 million individuals worldwide who are now on the Church's membership records was made a member of the Church posthumously. No posthumous baptisms are counted as being members of the Church.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes, I think the portrayal of LDS doctrine in that video is pretty much how most non-Mormons would explain it. It's a far cry, though, from how we would explain it. In this case, fiction is truly stranger than the truth.
The same general idea (Deification, i.e. "Eternal Progression" in LDS parlance) was clearly taught in the early days of Christianity -- not by random heretical sects, but by noted Church fathers:

Irenaeus: “If the Word became a man, it was so men may become gods. Do we cast blame on Him (God) because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods?”
Clement: “The Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.”
Saint Justin: "[Men are] deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest.”
Athanasius: “The Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods. He became man that we might be made divine.”
Augustine: “But He that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. For he has given them power to become the sons of God. If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.”

In much more recent years, the noted Christian scholar, C.S. Lewis, said, “The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were 'gods' and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said." (Underlining is mine.)

Thank you for the effort you put into this.
I am not a member of your church but I respect it.
As for the above Catholic philosophers - I wouldn't give them the time of day:
they are just adding and subtracting from the Gospel.

 

[blü 2]

I know some of what is said here is true of the faith, but is all of it pretty much on point?

If not, what has it got wrong?.

Very curious.

Not ever having gone into Mormonism to any depth, the only thing I was really sure about was that their book (regardless of the message) is written in an abysmally prolix and awkward style.

If the video gives a fair summary of their message, then to my view that message is just .... weird. Assuming the summary is fair:

they have severe problems with feminism ─ surely, in a world of equality, a right to polygamy implies a corresponding right to polyandry;

it's philosophically dismaying that they're forbidden, or at least their elite are forbidden, to read criticisms of Mormonism ─ it reminds me of the way fundies forbid any enquiry into whether the bible is in fact inerrant or not;

but at least one testable hypothesis is presented in the video: we can determine whether the peoples of the First Americans are Israelite or not by genetics, and I know what answer my money's on.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes, I think the portrayal of LDS doctrine in that video is pretty much how most non-Mormons would explain it. It's a far cry, though, from how we would explain it. In this case, fiction is truly stranger than the truth.

This from Wiki

In orthodox Mormonism, the term God generally refers to the biblical God the Father, whom
Mormons sometimes call Elohim,[1] and the term Godhead refers to a council of three distinct
divine persons consisting of God the Father, Jesus (his firstborn Son, whom Mormons sometimes
call Jehovah), and the Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit). Mormons believe that the Father, Son, and the Holy
Ghost are three distinct beings, and that the Father and Jesus have perfected, glorified, physical
bodies, while the Holy Ghost is a spirit without a physical body.[2] Mormons also believe that there
are other gods and goddesses outside the Godhead, such as a Heavenly Mother who is the wife
of God the Father, and that faithful Mormons may attain godhood in the afterlife.[3] Joseph Smith
taught that God was once a man on another planet before being exalted to Godhood.[4]

 

[Dragonslayer]

.

I know some of what is said here is true of the faith, but is all of it pretty much on point?

If not, what has it got wrong?

.

It's hard to resist calling Mormons Morons, it's hard to believe that people who actually have a brain would fall for such an outrageous fantasy. They prove that man will believe anything if the sales tactic is deceptive enough.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're "allowed" to call us whatever you want. The Church's leadership has simply asked that people use the correct name of the Church in its first mention (for instance in this thread), and then from there on to use the words, "the Church." For anyone who actually wants to be informed on the subject, the name of the Church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." I realize that, for some people, that's a lot to ask.

I find the request confusing, since I always saw "Mormon" as a term that the LDS Church self-applied.

I'm old enough to remember the PSAs on TV in the 80s that would end with "brought to you by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - the Mormons!"

I've never seen any hint that LDS Church members were unhappy with having the term "Mormon" applied to them until this announcement.

 

[`mud]

It's just a cult amongst all the others !
All they need is their own pope !
Orrrr....follow the money !

 

[viole]

I'd say that the average adult in the United States, if actually given a test on LDS beliefs, would fail miserably. Most of what people "know" about Mormonism comes from websites and various publications that are completely lacking in credibility. The video in the OP is a perfect example of the kinds of things most people actually think we believe. Let me give you an analogy. Roman Catholics believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, which teaches that the Eucharistic elements (i.e. the bread and wine) are actually transformed into the body and blood of Christ at their consecration, leaving only the appearance of bread and wine. Now if the producer of the video in the OP were to make a cartoon showing Catholic doctrines, the narrative would probably say, "Catholics are cannibals. Every time they go to mass, they sit down to a dinner of roasted Jesus and booze." He'd have a delightful little cartoon illustrating such a "meal." Oh, and he'd say, "This is straight out of Catholic writings."

Well, technically, i would not know how else to call someone who literally eats human flesh and drinks human blood.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Katzpur]

Not ever having gone into Mormonism to any depth, the only thing I was really sure about was that their book (regardless of the message) is written in an abysmally prolix and awkward style.

I didn't find it to be an easy read myself, but then I don't find the Bible to be an easy read either.

If the video gives a fair summary of their message, then to my view that message is just .... weird. Assuming the summary is fair:

Which it is not.

it's philosophically dismaying that they're forbidden, or at least their elite are forbidden, to read criticisms of Mormonism ─ it reminds me of the way fundies forbid any enquiry into whether the bible is in fact inerrant or not;

That wasn't even in the video, and nobody in the Church is forbidden to read anything.

but at least one testable hypothesis is presented in the video: we can determine whether the peoples of the First Americans are Israelite or not by genetics, and I know what answer my money's on.

Yeah, well that hypothesis isn't really what is taught either. Like the rest of the video, it apparently did accomplish its purpose -- convincing the gullible that we are a bunch of lunatics.

 

[Katzpur]

Thank you for the effort you put into this.
I am not a member of your church but I respect it.

Thank you.

As for the above Catholic philosophers - I wouldn't give them the time of day:
they are just adding and subtracting from the Gospel.

Whether they were right about this or wrong, they were the very same men who influenced the direction the early Christian Church went. Most of the doctrines believed today by the vast majority of Christians were introduced by these and other early Christian fathers during the first few centuries of Christianity.

 

[Katzpur]

It's hard to resist calling Mormons Morons, it's hard to believe that people who actually have a brain would fall for such an outrageous fantasy. They prove that man will believe anything if the sales tactic is deceptive enough.

So you apparently think that I, as a Mormon, believe the things that this video says members of my church do? And you talk about us as falling for outrageous fantasy. You believed the video. Apparently the sales tactic was deceptive enough. You're the gullible one here, and perhaps the moron, too.

 

[Katzpur]

I find the request confusing, since I always saw "Mormon" as a term that the LDS Church self-applied.

I'm old enough to remember the PSAs on TV in the 80s that would end with "brought to you by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - the Mormons!"

I've never seen any hint that LDS Church members were unhappy with having the term "Mormon" applied to them until this announcement.

I think President Nelson's request and particularly his comments were a bit over-the-top. We've never wanted our church to be called, "The Mormon Church" or "The Church of the Latter-day Saints" so I can understand where he's coming from, but you're right -- we even had a ad campaign a few years back called, "I'm a Mormon." There is a movie produced by the Church that is shown on Temple Square right now that is called "Meet the Mormons." I don't mind being called a Mormon or LDS, but I don't belong to either of the two above-mentioned "churches." Neither of them even exist. The correct name of our church incorporates the name of Jesus Christ in its title. We believe it to be His Church and it should bear his Name. I agree with the premise of President Nelson's request, but I really think that there are a lot more important issues for us (both Church members and non-Church members) to be worried about and focusing on.

 

[Shad]

Irenaeus: “If the Word became a man, it was so men may become gods. Do we cast blame on Him (God) because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods?”

Fake quote. Irenaeus never wrote this.

Clement: “The Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.”

Another fake quote


Roberts didn't do his homework. You should fact check what he wrote.

 

[Katzpur]

Fake quote. Irenaeus never wrote this.




Another fake quote


Roberts didn't do his homework. You should fact check what he wrote.

Wrong. These statements have been attributed to these individuals for hundreds of years. Here's one non-Mormon source, since you obviously think Roberts just made this stuff up. Ball's back in your court.

 

[Shad]

Wrong. These statements have been attributed to these individuals for hundreds of years. Here's one non-Mormon source, since you obviously think we just made this stuff up. Ball's back in your court.

Read your own source. It says God not a god.The Irenaeus quote is not even in your source.

yea, I say, the Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man may become God. Is it not then monstrous, my friends, that while God is ceaselessly exhorting us to virtue, we should spurn His kindness and reject salvation?

ANF02. Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire) - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Ante-Nicene Christian Library/Exhortation to the Heathen - Wikisource, the free online library

More so look at the section. You are conflating theosis with LDS ideas.

 

[silvermoon383]

Here’s all I have to say about that video:

Peter represents those who stoop to making videos like the one in the OP