http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/why-i-love-mormonism/?hp

The writer makes it look like Mormonism is actually legit (at times) and that ol' Joe had some brains, like he was sane. I mean, seriously? The writer asks a few questions in the beginning that I haven't had the chance to respond to and give my two million dollars worth of valid opinions. Ugh, this op-ed piece is giving me the heebie-jeebies.

Critchley, lays out very nicely exactly what Mormons believe. He has just written what I would consider to be the best explanation of JS's God doctrine that I have ever read. He clearly understands the issues and GBH is turning over in his grave.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2012 07:58PM by jacob.

If I had read this article as a TBM I would have been ecstatic. The LDS theory of godhood and eternal progression was my "pet" doctrine, as it were, and was one of the main reasons I stayed in the church even though I grew increasingly uncomfortable every year.

Too bad said doctrine is complete and utter bull****.

It appears that the author, who sounds very well-meaning, completely bought the stories that his philosopher-friends told him without doing research using primary documents. It's understandable that he would take their word; they were intelligent, educated colleagues who treated him well in order to build a relationship of trust. I wonder what he would think if he saw a pre-1920 copy of the D&C.

I don't think you really understood his point of view. He likes the doctrine not because he thinks it has merit, but because it is different and fun to talk about. He clearly makes fun of it multiple times and most of the article reads as satire.

I don't think he was satirizing it. He clearly doesn't believe in it, but he presents it as it was presented to him, without delving any deeper. (Of course, for his purposes it wasn't necessary to do so.)

I loved the fact that he called a certain person in politics "You know who" twice.
Any body who reads children's books about wizards and witches Knows who You Know Who is.
Just making a little connection, I do not claim that the author made this connection on purpose, but what fun if he did?
sly.
librarian

I think it is important for readers to understand that the author of this piece is an atheist. I don't believe that his view point is the best and most credible as far as presenting a particular faith's beliefs. I would recommend finding someone who actually believes in the Mormon faith and asking them about their beliefs. It is there that you are much more likely to find the truth.

___________________________

It must be noted that the King Follett sermon is not canonized doctrine because it is based on long-hand notes taken by listeners. It was never reviewed for accuracy by Joseph Smith. A few people suggested we hide this material--it's hidden right on the official Mormon website. Mormons do that--they just hide things right out in public where the whole world and Google can find them. You can read it here, with cautionary notes:
http://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/05/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng&q...

To read what is canonized on this subject, you can go to the same website and read answers to FAQs:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-101

The fact that some Mormons, and even some leaders, believe something does not make it canonized. Mormons believe God gave us our brains and expects us to use them. Where there is no canonized statement, we are free to make up our own minds. (That holds for Joseph Smith, as well.) Generally, canonized statements are those that impact our ability to live the gospel and return home to God. The material focused on in this article does neither and is not a core doctrine or even, to most Mormons, very important or interesting.

__________________________________________

Funny about the last one, because this is the core doctrine. Every religion defines deity, and the definition of deity in turn defines the religion. Everything in their saving doctrines point to the King Follett sermon, everything.

Ya gotta love the old, we can't help it if people believe this stuff...after all that IS what we used to sell them on our plan of Salvation and Exaltation

I kind of liked this piece because it was written from the viewpoint of a person from the outside looking in. Kind of like how a person might study anthropology. He certainly wasn't endorsing Mormon ideas as true, but simple had respect for Mormonism as a response to current political/religious teachings from JS's times. It is really hard from us that have been scarred from Mormonism to look at the religion with respect. But this guy doesn't bear the scars. He simply looks at Mormonism as an oddity that has interesting beliefs. Currently navigating my own way through Mormonism, I kind of liked the points he made.

The comments section doesn't give Mormonism much credence, as per usual.

He seems to have missed the bit about women being priestesses to their husbands and goddesses with them. But that would happen if he used King Follett as a source document.

He has used UTLM as a link for the King Follett. LDS.org have it as a two-part Ensign article from way back that would have been more effective for non-TBMs investigating it - getting it from the horses mouth.

Here it is:
http://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/05/the-king-follett-sermon

Reprinting it in the modern Ensign is reconfirmation of it as doctrine.

And standing that next to Hinckleys various denials of the man-to-God doctrine is all the evidence you need for "lying for the Lord" from the highest levels of the church.

Sounds like Cabbie.