Bigotry: Yes or No? Dawkins and Voting for a Mormon

[DeepShadow]

If he could find an atheist group that believed that people would be reborn in another planet or something, sure, let him criticize them as well.

I just don't see how his criticism can be bigotry unless it is innacurate or misrepresentative.

Is he misrepresenting Mormon beliefs?

At the very least, he's misrepresenting the degree to which we must subscribe to those beliefs. The part about "having a planet after we die" is fringe Mormonism that very few LDS that I know of have thought much about. Fringe Mormonism is a great target for ridicule because it has lots of bizarre things that the average Mormon does not bother to question...because it's fringe.

It's possible to question the manner of how the BoM came to be, or how the authority has come to the present generation, or many other central beliefs and still be a member in good standing. So when he says that Mitt Romney believes that Joe Smith used magic glasses from an angel to turn a gold Bible into a book, and then lost the original (*nyuk nyuk*), he's not just being snarky and mean. He's wrong, because Mitt is not required to believe that in order to be a Mormon.

But let's say Mitt does believe that. Mitt sure *looks* like a mainstream Mormon, so let's just say that he has swallowed the whole story. How is this any more absurd than a virgin giving birth? Dawkins has had plenty of *nyuks* about that idea, too, but the fact is, using that as a voting test would eliminate most of the U.S. Presidents, including some excellent leaders. And there's the rub: IF religious beliefs are delusional absurdities, then a great many people have been able to compartmentalize them and lead their countries effectively. In which case, using them to eliminate leaders is about as effective as eliminating leaders by handedness.

The bottom line is that, until we have a strong negative correlation between (X specific religious belief) and leadership ability, that belief is a poor test of leadership. If someone wants to say that membership in the LDS church is negatively correlated with leadership, then I'm willing to review their data. I have yet to see Dawkins present any data correlating LDS membership with anything.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think it is bigotry. When it comes to voting for a candidate, I vote for their stand on issues and stuff not for what religion a guy follows. How would Dawkins feel if someone said the same thing about an atheist candidate?

Romney is a Mormon.
Obama is a Xian.
Which religion's adherents believe in stranger things?
I dunno.
So I agree....look primarily at the issues & the candidate's agenda in this world (not the afterlife).

 

[Ingledsva]

At the very least, he's misrepresenting the degree to which we must subscribe to those beliefs. The part about "having a planet after we die" is fringe Mormonism that very few LDS that I know of have thought much about. Fringe Mormonism is a great target for ridicule because it has lots of bizarre things that the average Mormon does not bother to question...because it's fringe.

...

This first paragraph really stands out because of your choice of words.



If your religion has these "fringe ideas," why aren't you folks getting rid of them?



From what I've read in the religion's sanctioned books, some of these "fringe ideas" are actually part of the religion's accepted religious dogma.



*

 

[DeepShadow]

If your religion has these "fringe ideas," why aren't you folks getting rid of them?

Huh? How would we do that? If someone in authority says, for example, that there are literal descendants of Jesus Christ walking the earth right now, all the church can do is not add that statement to the canon, and move on. And that's what we've done. It's our critics who go through our history and dredge up who said what and when, and then try to say, "This is what Mormons believe." As if ALL Mormons believe everything every leader ever said.

I think some confusion here is arising from the word "fringe." I'm meaning it as ideas that are on the fringe of the church. You appear to have taken it to mean things on the fringe of...something else. Reasonable thought? At any rate, I don't see how we would remove bad ideas from our doctrine, any more than we have.

From what I've read in the religion's sanctioned books, some of these "fringe ideas" are actually part of the religion's accepted religious dogma.

Do you have an example of a scriptural dogma so damning it justifies Dawkins' remarks?

 

[Katzpur]

Yep. Sounds like he's misrepresenting things.

At the very least, he's misrepresenting the degree to which we must subscribe to those beliefs.

I agree. What he is presenting is a parody, a caricature of Mormon beliefs.

 

[Katzpur]

If your religion has these "fringe ideas," why aren't you folks getting rid of them?

You can't be serious. How would you suggest we go about doing that? Start burning books? Every religion on the face of this earth has some teachings that are considered to be core doctrines, other teachings that are less significant and a few that are almost never even mentioned except, of course, by outsiders who figure its their business to tell everybody else how and what they should believe. With respect to Mormonism, we do believe in a doctrine known to us as "Eternal Progression." This doctrine is beautiful. It is uplifting and inspires us to be the best people we possibly can. Many of the early Church fathers taught very much the same thing as we LDS teach today. In more recent years, C.S. Lewis expressed it this way:

“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."

I'd say C.S. Lewis expressed our belief almost exactly as we would express it, but how many people ever said, "Lewis believes that when he dies, he's going to get his own planet"? We don't know any of the particulars about what exaltation means, so how is it our detractors seem to have it all figured out? You could attend LDS worship services every Sunday for your entire life and never be told that when you die, you're going to get your very own planet. You'd never hear anything remotely like that. When people makes stupid comments like that to me, do you know what I tell them? I tell them that should I ever end up becoming a goddess (yeah, imagine that ), I'm not going to accept some hand-me-down planet. I'm going to create a whole universe of my own. Then I'm going to populate it with a handful of humans and a whole lot of animals.

From what I've read in the religion's sanctioned books, some of these "fringe ideas" are actually part of the religion's accepted religious dogma.

Yeah... like what? What have you actually read from "the religions sanctioned books" anyway?

 

[camanintx]

And whenever they do so to exclude people from holding office, that's called "bigotry." Advocating a religious test of any kind as a vote filter is nothing more than organized bigotry.

Of course I would, if I agreed with his/her political stance! There is no difference. That's why I've argued repeatedly against how seven US states (Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas) forbid atheists from holding public office. That's immoral and unconstitutional. Vote for them by their actions and policies, rather than their religious beliefs!

Is it really so hard to see the bigotry and prejudice in this?!

It very well could be bigotry and prejudice, but the Constitution doesn't prevent the people from being bigots or prejudiced. It only places restrictions on the government, and last time I checked Richard Dawkins didn't represent the government. Is it really so hard to see the difference.

When it comes to selecting our representatives, sometimes there isn't much difference between their political stance and their religious stance. Otherwise, issues like abortion and gay rights wouldn't be such hot potatoes. If one feels that the positions of a given religious group conflicts with their political positions, and a given candidate claims to follow those religious beliefs, then why shouldn't they base their vote on that claim?

 

[Ingledsva]

You can't be serious. How would you suggest we go about doing that? Start burning books? Every religion on the face of this earth has some teachings that are considered to be core doctrines, other teachings that are less significant and a few that are almost never even mentioned except, of course, by outsiders who figure its their business to tell everybody else how and what they should believe. With respect to Mormonism, we do believe in a doctrine known to us as "Eternal Progression." This doctrine is beautiful. It is uplifting and inspires us to be the best people we possibly can. Many of the early Church fathers taught very much the same thing as we LDS teach today. In more recent years, C.S. Lewis expressed it this way:

“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."

I'd say C.S. Lewis expressed our belief almost exactly as we would express it, but how many people ever said, "Lewis believes that when he dies, he's going to get his own planet"? We don't know any of the particulars about what exaltation means, so how is it our detractors seem to have it all figured out? You could attend LDS worship services every Sunday for your entire life and never be told that when you die, you're going to get your very own planet. You'd never hear anything remotely like that. When people makes stupid comments like that to me, do you know what I tell them? I tell them that should I ever end up becoming a goddess (yeah, imagine that ), I'm not going to accept some hand-me-down planet. I'm going to create a whole universe of my own. Then I'm going to populate it with a handfull of humans and a whole lot of animals.

Yeah... like what? What have you actually read from "the religions sanctioned books" anyway?

Yes I have read from some of these books.


The word he used in the Bible is Elohiym, which as shown many time here, also means leaders, Kings, Magistrates, etc. Not human Gods.


"The real life we’re preparing for is eternal life. Secular knowledge has for us eternal significance. Our conviction is that God, our Heavenly Father, wants us to live the life that He does. We learn both the spiritual things and the secular things 'so we may one day create worlds [and] people and govern them' -- (Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball [1982], 386)." (Henry B. Eyring)


“Brethren, 225,000 of you are here tonight. I suppose 225,000 of you may become gods. There seems to be plenty of space out there in the universe. And the Lord has proved that he knows how to do it. I think he could make, or probably have us help make, worlds for all of us, for every one of us 225,000” -- (Spencer W. Kimball, “The Privilege of Holding the Priesthood,” Ensign (Conference Edition), November 1975, p. 80. Quoted in Doctrine and Covenants Institute Student Manual).


10th President Joseph Fielding Smith -- “The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fullness of his kingdom. In other words, we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fullness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 2:48, quoted in Achieving a Celestial Marriage Student Manual, 1976, p.132)


As I said - if you folks don't believe this stuff - why do you stay in the religion, - or why do you not delete these from the doctrine?



*

 

[Katzpur]

Yes I have read from some of these books.

Sure you have. There are snippets from them all over the internet, mostly on anti-Mormon website. As for "the religion's sanctioned books," what does that even mean? The LDS Church doesn't issue a list of approved books, nor does it ban other books. To you, "the religion's sanctioned books" means nothing more than "something written by a Mormon."

The word he used in the Bible is Elohiym, which as shown many time here, also means leaders, Kings, Magistrates, etc. Not human Gods.

"The real life we’re preparing for is eternal life. Secular knowledge has for us eternal significance. Our conviction is that God, our Heavenly Father, wants us to live the life that He does. We learn both the spiritual things and the secular things 'so we may one day create worlds [and] people and govern them' -- (Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball [1982], 386)." (Henry B. Eyring)

“Brethren, 225,000 of you are here tonight. I suppose 225,000 of you may become gods. There seems to be plenty of space out there in the universe. And the Lord has proved that he knows how to do it. I think he could make, or probably have us help make, worlds for all of us, for every one of us 225,000” -- (Spencer W. Kimball, “The Privilege of Holding the Priesthood,” Ensign (Conference Edition), November 1975, p. 80. Quoted in Doctrine and Covenants Institute Student Manual).

10th President Joseph Fielding Smith -- “The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fullness of his kingdom. In other words, we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fullness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 2:48, quoted in Achieving a Celestial Marriage Student Manual, 1976, p.132)

As I said - if you folks don't believe this stuff - why do you stay in the religion, - or why do you not delete these from the doctrine?

You just don't get it, do you? I'm not the slightest bit surprised. "Getting it" requires that you make even a marginal effort to do so, and this is something you're simply not interesed in doing. As a matter of fact, I often wonder if you even both to read posts before you respond to them.

The LDS canon is comprised of four volumes that we believe to be scripture. We call these "The Standard Works." These are the only books in which LDS doctrine is defined. You did not mention a single solitary one of them. They are: The Holy Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price.

Miscellaneous books, magazine articles, study guides, etc. are not sources of Mormon doctrine. They contain the author's interpretation of doctrine, and that's all. The notion that, as Mormons, we are each going to be given a planet when we did is not LDS doctrine. We can't "delete this from our doctrine" because IT'S NOT OUR DOCTRINE. This isn't rocket science by any means, so don't try to pretend that it is.

Truly, your sig says it all: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you. You have repeatedly demonstrated that the only reason you even bother to post is to misquote what people say and use it against them. You can do it all you want, but I'll call you on it every time, just as I'm doing right now.

 

[DeepShadow]

It very well could be bigotry and prejudice, but the Constitution doesn't prevent the people from being bigots or prejudiced.

Of course not. Who here is saying otherwise?

It only places restrictions on the government, and last time I checked Richard Dawkins didn't represent the government. Is it really so hard to see the difference.

I never said he represented the government. Ever.

When it comes to selecting our representatives, sometimes there isn't much difference between their political stance and their religious stance. Otherwise, issues like abortion and gay rights wouldn't be such hot potatoes. If one feels that the positions of a given religious group conflicts with their political positions, and a given candidate claims to follow those religious beliefs, then why shouldn't they base their vote on that claim?

Because it should be easy enough to judge whether the candidate has the corresponding political leanings, and base the vote on that. If you make the judgement based on the religious belief alone, you run the risk of rejecting someone who might be going against the mainstream of their religion.

I've met pro-choice Mormons, Catholics who believed in birth control, and plenty of others who go against the mainstream of their religion. If such a person ran for office, anyone who uses their religion to estimate their political agenda is going to be 100% wrong. Are you really comfortable with that? Isn't it better to listen just a little longer to get the gist of their political leanings, not just their religious ones?

 

[DeepShadow]

As I said - if you folks don't believe this stuff - why do you stay in the religion, - or why do you not delete these from the doctrine?

Are those books and manuals still being used? No.

Are those teachings still being printed in current manuals? No.

Sounds to me like we have deleted them from our doctrine. I'm not sure what kind of deletion you are looking for. Short of time travel, I'm not sure what else we can do to distance ourselves from these teachings.

You had to go back twenty years to find those statements, and none of them are in our standard works. They are therefore removed in both time and doctrinal significance. What further deletion would you recommend?

 

[Ingledsva]

Sure you have. There are snippets from them all over the internet, mostly on anti-Mormon website. As for "the religion's sanctioned books," what does that even mean? The LDS Church doesn't issue a list of approved books, nor does it ban other books. To you, "the religion's sanctioned books" means nothing more than "something written by a Mormon."

You just don't get it, do you? I'm not the slightest bit surprised. "Getting it" requires that you make even a marginal effort to do so, and this is something you're simply not interesed in doing. As a matter of fact, I often wonder if you even both to read posts before you respond to them.

The LDS canon is comprised of four volumes that we believe to be scripture. We call these "The Standard Works." These are the only books in which LDS doctrine is defined. You did not mention a single solitary one of them. They are: The Holy Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price.

Miscellaneous books, magazine articles, study guides, etc. are not sources of Mormon doctrine. They contain the author's interpretation of doctrine, and that's all. The notion that, as Mormons, we are each going to be given a planet when we did is not LDS doctrine. We can't "delete this from our doctrine" because IT'S NOT OUR DOCTRINE. This isn't rocket science by any means, so don't try to pretend that it is.

Truly, your sig says it all: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you. You have repeatedly demonstrated that the only reason you even bother to post is to misquote what people say and use it against them. You can do it all you want, but I'll call you on it every time, just as I'm doing right now.

My goodness you are getting hostile, and throwing around lies about me.


I looked up the books the last time this argument was brought up.


Obviously you missed the sources -


“Brethren, 225,000 of you are here tonight. I suppose 225,000 of you may become gods. There seems to be plenty of space out there in the universe. And the Lord has proved that he knows how to do it. I think he could make, or probably have us help make, worlds for all of us, for every one of us 225,000” -- (Spencer W. Kimball, “The Privilege of Holding the Priesthood,” Ensign (Conference Edition), November 1975, p. 80. Quoted in Doctrine and Covenants Institute Student Manual).


10th President Joseph Fielding Smith -- “The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fullness of his kingdom. In other words, we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fullness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 2:48, quoted in Achieving a Celestial Marriage Student Manual, 1976, p.132)



*

 

[Ingledsva]

Are those books and manuals still being used? No.

Are those teachings still being printed in current manuals? No.

Sounds to me like we have deleted them from our doctrine. I'm not sure what kind of deletion you are looking for. Short of time travel, I'm not sure what else we can do to distance ourselves from these teachings.

You had to go back twenty years to find those statements, and none of them are in our standard works. They are therefore removed in both time and doctrinal significance. What further deletion would you recommend?

You folks need to get together and as a Church Group tell the world these are no longer believed by the church.


This would bring these threads to a quick end.


They are still in the Doctrines and covenants. If they are false teachings to the modern church, they should be removed.


*

 

[LuisDantas]

You folks need to get together and as a Church Group tell the world these are no longer believed by the church.


This would bring these threads to a quick end.


They are still in the Doctrines and covenants. If they are false teachings to the modern church, they should be removed.


*

I agree to a point.

On the other hand... have you seen the South Park episode about the Mormons? The last minute or so of it has considerable wisdom IMO.

Putting it in my own words, I think it is a mistake to blame people for being more sensible and reasonable than my judgement of their doctrine would lead me to expect them to be.

That... well, I guess that would be bigotry. Or at least very unwise.

I can't very well complain that a doctrine is silly and right then and there complain that its adherents are not allowing it to become unreasonable. Not without emptying my own complaint considerably, anyway.

And that is before considering whether it is indeed their doctrine, that of a splinter group, or some caricature of either.

I like Dawkins personally. But you know what? I have decided that he jumped the gun this time.

Simple as that. And it is no big deal, come to think of it. He should be allowed to say nonsense from time to time, and we all should be allowed to call him on that when need be.




Now, about you: Katzpur, DeepShadow and others that may have kept silent.

Let me just tell you that I deeply value those moments when people are
baited into defending a fundamentalist stance and turn out to be too reasonable to take that bait. We need more, so many more of them.

I'm a bit ashamed when I see that I failed to consider that before defending Dawkin's speech. Therefore, I can see no fair choice for me to take other than asking for your forgiveness and thanking your both for your ever so needed good will and fairness. I will do my best to deserve it in the future.

All the best for you all, my brothers.

 

[Ingledsva]

I agree to a point.

On the other hand... have you seen the South Park episode about the Mormons? The last minute or so of it has considerable wisdom IMO.


ING -- Sorry I don't watch that show.


Putting it in my own words, I think it is a mistake to blame people for being more sensible and reasonable than my judgement of their doctrine would lead me to expect them to be.

That... well, I guess that would be bigotry. Or at least very unwise.

I can't very well complain that a doctrine is silly and right then and there complain that its adherents are not allowing it to become unreasonable. Not without emptying my own complaint considerably, anyway.


ING -- I didn't blame them for anything. I also am not the one that brought up the God-Planet info. You can read my answer to the original post on the top of page 16. I didn't join further into this discussion until the info was called a lie - which it isn't. They taught this. THEN - I asked a question. And I have another. Why do they keep saying people are lying, that bring up the FACT that the church taught this stuff? They did. As I said the last time this came up - Not only have I read the material, - I've been told so by Mormons.


And that is before considering whether it is indeed their doctrine, that of a splinter group, or some caricature of either.

...

Encyclopedia of Mormonism by Brigham Young University - 1992


Godhood - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism


Read the article all the way to the bottom.

"... The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all resurrected and perfected mortals become gods (cf. Gen. 3:22; Matt. 5:48). They will dwell again with God the Father, and live and act like him in endless worlds of happiness, power, love, glory, and knowledge; above all, they will have the power of procreating endless lives. Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus Christ attained godhood (see Christology) and that he marked the path and led the way for others likewise to become exalted divine beings by following him (cf. John 14:3).


"Joseph Smith also wrote, "... Moreover, Latter-day Saints believe that those who become gods will have the opportunity to participate even more fully in God's work of bringing eternal life to other beings. God is referred to as "Father in Heaven" because he is the father of all human spirits (Heb. 12:9; cf. Acts 17:29), imbuing them with divine potentials. Those who become like him will likewise contribute to this eternal process by adding further spirit offspring to the eternal family."



*

 

[LuisDantas]

Fair points.

Still, I maintain what I just said.

If Mormons or anyone else value common sense and being reasonable over the letter of the scripture (correctly interpreted or otherwise), I say welcome and more power to them.

Life is much too short for me to complain that people should be fundamentalists yet they refuse to be.

 

[Katzpur]

My goodness you are getting hostile, and throwing around lies about me.

I'm not hostile. I just find discussions with you to be beyond pointless. You admit in your signature how you intend to debate. I did nothing but call you out on it.

I looked up the books the last time this argument was brought up.

You "looked up the books." What does that mean? It doesn't mean you read them, that's for sure. And yes, we have had this argument before. The matter should have been resolved at that time, but until such time as you decide that misquoting people and using their remarks against them, we're going to end up repeating ourselves until one of us simply gets tired of playing the game.

Obviously you missed the sources -


“Brethren, 225,000 of you are here tonight. I suppose 225,000 of you may become gods. There seems to be plenty of space out there in the universe. And the Lord has proved that he knows how to do it. I think he could make, or probably have us help make, worlds for all of us, for every one of us 225,000” -- (Spencer W. Kimball, “The Privilege of Holding the Priesthood,” Ensign (Conference Edition), November 1975, p. 80. Quoted in Doctrine and Covenants Institute Student Manual).


10th President Joseph Fielding Smith -- “The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fullness of his kingdom. In other words, we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fullness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 2:48, quoted in Achieving a Celestial Marriage Student Manual, 1976, p.132)



*

No, obviously YOU missed the sources. I don't know how I can dumb it down and further for you: Your sources are 35-year-old, obsolute student manuals. They are not part of the "Standard Works." What part of that do you not understand? Furthermore, neither of your sources say anything to the effect that "when we die, we each get our own planet." I didn't see that in either of your quotes. Are you going to tell me I missed that, too?

 

[Katzpur]

You folks need to get together and as a Church Group tell the world these are no longer believed by the church.

We (the church's leadership) have already issued a statement to that effect, and it has done absolutely no good whatsoever. Here are a couple of paragraphs from that statement:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

This would bring these threads to a quick end.

No it wouldn't. There would still be people out there who would be dragging out obsolete materials and paraphrasing them to mean something they were never intended to mean in the first place. What we as members of the Church say clearly goes right over the heads of people who have decided, before even jumping into a thread such as this one, that they are going to misquote us and use what we say against us.

They are still in the Doctrines and covenants. If they are false teachings to the modern church, they should be removed.

I have a great suggestion for you. Give us some quotes from the Doctrine and Covenants. Don't attempt to misquote the book or to paraphrase what it says. Do that and you will have no argument from us.

 

[Katzpur]

Encyclopedia of Mormonism by Brigham Young University - 1992


Godhood - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism


Read the article all the way to the bottom.

"... The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all resurrected and perfected mortals become gods (cf. Gen. 3:22; Matt. 5:48). They will dwell again with God the Father, and live and act like him in endless worlds of happiness, power, love, glory, and knowledge; above all, they will have the power of procreating endless lives. Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus Christ attained godhood (see Christology) and that he marked the path and led the way for others likewise to become exalted divine beings by following him (cf. John 14:3).


"Joseph Smith also wrote, "... Moreover, Latter-day Saints believe that those who become gods will have the opportunity to participate even more fully in God's work of bringing eternal life to other beings. God is referred to as "Father in Heaven" because he is the father of all human spirits (Heb. 12:9; cf. Acts 17:29), imbuing them with divine potentials. Those who become like him will likewise contribute to this eternal process by adding further spirit offspring to the eternal family."



*

Please see my post on this thread.

 

[Katzpur]

Now, about you: Katzpur, DeepShadow and others that may have kept silent.

Let me just tell you that I deeply value those moments when people are
baited into defending a fundamentalist stance and turn out to be too reasonable to take that bait. We need more, so many more of them.

I'm a bit ashamed when I see that I failed to consider that before defending Dawkin's speech. Therefore, I can see no fair choice for me to take other than asking for your forgiveness and thanking your both for your ever so needed good will and fairness. I will do my best to deserve it in the future.

All the best for you all, my brothers.

I would be very surprised, Luis,if you were ever to find yourself in a position of needing to apologize to me. DeepShadow, in my opinion, is the perfect example of someone who is "too reasonable to take [the] bait." After nearly 9 years on this forum, I'm still as inept at it as I ever was. This thread, however, has wandered off topic sufficiently that I have decided to post something on the LDS DIR to clarify what we do and do not believe with regards to man's divine potential. I certainly hope that I will be able to restrain myself from further participation on this particular thread.