Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If somewhere in the universe God ever decides to create another planet like earth, and if he populates that planet with people just like us, I can just see all the guffawing, mockery and eye-rolling as the prophets of that planet tell the people that God was once a helpless little baby boy who was born to a mortal woman (shades of Greek mythology) and grew up on a watery planet in another galaxy called earth (shades of science fiction); that this planet called earth was held in the gravitational field of a smallish star called the Sun (shades of Carl Sagen); and that the supposedly immortal and eternal God whom they worship was executed by his enemies and buried on the same planet (shades of Star Wars) Alien orientation indeed! The only way God can prevent the great potential embarrassment that could result from the revelation of this "Kolob-like" story is to a) never create and populate another planet like earth. Or b) be sure to keep everyone on that planet, including the prophets, in the dark as to the nature of reality.

Looks like God has locked himself into never being able to create another Adam and Eve and Eden. After all, what would the people say if word ever got out? Heaven forbid, it sounds too much like "those crazy Mormons!"

What?

Share this post


Link to post

What?

Non-LDS Christians think it's insane the Mormons believe the eternal God lives on a glorified planet near a great star named Kolob. Yet these very same non-LDS Christians think it's perfectly fine and reasonable to believe the same eternal God was born on this fallen planet as the helpless infant son of a mortal mother, and that this same eternal God was finally sentensed to death and executed by his enemies.

If God ever creates another earth like this one, and populates it with the same kind of people, which one of the two above stories do you think they would find more difficult to believe?

Non-LDS Christians have no problem believing God will live, rule and reign on THIS PLANET for a at least a thousand years. Yet these very same people think it's quaint, laughable nonsense to believe God could dwell on anothet planet situated elsewhere in the same universe. If God could be born and die on this fallen planet, why is it so hard to believe he could dwell on anothet planet? The precident has been set, yet the concept of God living on a planet is supposed to be the stuff of childish fantasy.

Now read my previous post again...

Edited by Bobbieaware

Share this post


Link to post

Non-LDS Christians think it's insane the Mormons believe the eternal God lives on a glorified planet near a great star named Kolob. Yet these very same non-LDS Christians think it's perfectly fine and reasonable to believe the same eternal God was born on this fallen planet as the helpless infant son of a mortal mother, and that this same eternal God was finally sentensed to death and executed by his enemies.

If God ever creates another earth like this one, and populates it with the same kind of people, which one of the two above stories do you think they would find more difficult to believe?

Non-LDS Christians have no problem believing God will live, rule and reign on THIS PLANET for a at least a thousand years. Yet these very same people think it's quaint, laughable nonsense to believe God could dwell on anothet planet situated elsewhere in the same universe. If God could be born and die on this fallen planet, why is it so hard to believe he could dwell on anothet planet? The precident has been set, yet the concept of God living on a planet is supposed to be the stuff of childish fantasy.

Now read my previous post again...

Insane is not a word I would choose.

Other than that, you are applying Mormon theology, and creating belief that I don't hold. Too many to address, really. But suffice it to say, God Incarnated here, among us, and reigns now and reigns forever. A limit of 1000 years, is not something I believe.

As to ETI, it is not in conflict with what God has revealed, and whether or not life exists elsewhere is a scientific question, not theological.

Christian speculation over the last 2000 years have included ideas that the blood of Christ redeems the universe, or, the Son could Incarnate multiple times (I find this one problematic), or that redemption through God is possible in other ways. Those are just the ones of which I am aware.

But as I said, I find this kind of speculation unnecessary. God has revealed Himself and His purpose for us. I don't find speculating about first, the possibility of other life, second if that life required redemption, and third is is how, to be anything but an exercise in creative imagining, which has no theological relevance.

Edited by saemo

Share this post


Link to post

Insane is not a word I would choose.

Other than that, you are applying Mormon theology, and creating belief that I don't hold. Too many to address, really. But suffice it to say, God Incarnated here, among us, and reigns now and reigns forever. A limit of 1000 years, is not something I believe.

As to ETI, it is not in conflict with what God has revealed, and whether or not life exists elsewhere is a scientific question, not theological.

Christian speculation over the last 2000 years have included ideas that the blood of Christ redeems the universe, or, the Son could Incarnate multiple times (I find this one problematic), or that redemption through God is possible in other ways. Those are just the ones of which I am aware.

But as I said, I find this kind of speculation unnecessary. God has revealed Himself and His purpose for us. I don't find speculating about first, the possibility of other life, second if that life required redemption, and third is is how, to be anything but an exercise in creative imagining, which has no theological relevance.

My point is simple: Non-LDS Christians think the LDS belief that God lives on a planet is ridiculous, the very notion being the source of much mockery throughout the years. Yet these very same people who mock and poke fun at the Mormon belief that God lives on a planet do themselves believe God indeed has lived and will again live on a planet, but for some reason, in this latter instance, that belief is not considered to be a source of uproarious laughter, mockery and ridicule. The great irony of this intellectual duplicity and logical blindness may be lost on you but it isn't lost on me. People who live in theological glass houses should stop and think about what they themselves actually believe before they start throwing polemical stones at others who basically believe the same thing.

At this very moment, there are multitudes of angels who know God was born, lived, died, was reborn and will soon live forever on a planet. I wonder if they mock and ridicule such a preposterous idea? After all, everybody knows God doesn't live on a planet!

Edited by Bobbieaware

Share this post


Link to post

Bobbie, though I find that most Mormons spend little, if any, time criticizing the beliefs of our fellow Christians it is not unheard of and does occur.  The comments of others about LDS beliefs has little value and should be viewed in the same manner as we hope they view the poor comments of our members when they criticize the beliefs of others. 

 

When it comes to these type of topics I generally tend to think of a bulls eye target for archery practice or shooting practice.  There are many topics that are absolutely required for salvation and then there are others that are important, but not essential.  We finally come to that outer most ring that addresses topics that may have personal value, but have no value for salvation, discipleship, and our pursuit of holiness.  These areas get pulled out at times and discussed, but I try to keep them in perspective; they have no value except for speculation and there is nothing to argue about or create bad feelings over. 

 

More importantly, whether one beliefs or does not believe some of these ideas or concepts found in these peripheral topic areas has nothing to do teaching the gospel or fellowship with those within or outside of the Church.

 

Lest you think I limit this comment to my LDS brothers and sisters, please know that I have had similar discussions with our Catholic brothers and sisters who can get pretty far out there when it comes to speculative, mystical topics.  These ideas are legion among almost all religions.   

Edited by Storm Rider

Share this post


Link to post

Not really. :D This idea presupposes a God that is part of nature. A God that has a species. Christian theology is, that God as Creator, exists outside of nature and has no species.

 

Or, if it helps, God is the author of nature, but as its transcendent ultimate cause, not as another natural cause alongside the other natural causes.

 

God made man in his own likeness and image. Man has become one of us. Read your Bible.

Share this post


Link to post

Don't mean to derail, but has there been any comparisons between Jehovah's Witnesses & TCOJCOLDS on this board?  Since so many put all three, Scientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses and LDS in the same category. 

Share this post


Link to post

God made man in his own likeness and image. Man has become one of us. Read your Bible.

I was making a comparative religion statement and you respond with a snarky insult.

 

With this a bobbieaware's statements, I think this topic has turned rather anti-Christian. I'll leave y'all to it.

Share this post


Link to post
When it comes to these type of topics I generally tend to think of a bulls eye target for archery practice or shooting practice. 

 

Using this analogy...

 

Too often when discussing the beliefs of others, it is more of a habit of drawing the target around the arrow rather than finding the appropriate target to shoot at.

 

I see Bobbieaware as ignoring some fundamental beliefs regarding many nonLDS's concept of the nature of God and the three persons of the Trinity.  Finding something to be blasphemous in regards to the Father but not the Son is not illogical.

Edited by calmoriah

Share this post


Link to post

God made man in his own likeness and image. Man has become one of us. Read your Bible.

saemo was well-aware of the unorthodox nature of Mormon claims and was merely pointing out that normative Christianity takes a very different view, perhaps (in your lingo) mingling Greek philosophy with Scripture.  That is why Mormons are widely (and correctly) regarded as heretics by the mainstream Christian community.  If we are not true heretics by normative Christian standards, then there is no point to our existence.  We should be proud of our heretical status, since it gets us back to true biblical religion.  Which is the whole point of the "Restoration."

 

Norbert Samuelson, "That the God of the Philosophers is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob," Harvard Theological Review, 65 (1972):1-27.

 

Georg Picht, “The God of the Philosophers,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 48/1 (1980):61-79.  Online at http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/content/XLVIII/1/61.abstract .
 
Ernst W. Benz, “Imagio Dei: Man in the Image of God,” in T. Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism (Provo, 1978), 201-219 = “Der Mensch als Imago Dei,” in Eranos Jahrbuch 40 (1971), and also published in Urbild und Abbild: Der Mensch und die mythische Welt: gesammelte Eranos-Beitrage (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 326, 
 
Regardless of how one feels about the doctrine of progressive deification, one thing is certain: Joseph Smith’s anthropology of man is closer to the concept of man in the primitive church than that of the proponents of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, who considered the idea of such a fundamental and corporeal relationship between God and man as the quintessential heresy.
 
Yohanan Muffs, “Agent of the Lord, Warrior for the People: The Prophet’s Paradox,” Bible Review, 18/6 (Dec 2002):23,
 
 [T]he biblical God is anthropomorphic.  Whoever strips God of his personal quality distorts the true meaning of Scripture.
 
These guys are all non-Mormon and they depict God in ways which only Mormons can understand and accept.  Normative Christians are the true heretics since they do not believe in the God of the Bible, but have unwittingly replaced the true God with a Greek philosophical substitute of their own design.
Edited by Robert F. Smith

Share this post


Link to post

I was making a comparative religion statement and you respond with a snarky insult.

With this a bobbieaware's statements, I think this topic has turned rather anti-Christian. I'll leave y'all to it.

So it's anti-Christiam to believe God lives on a planet when the New Textament is all about God being born, living, dying, rising from the dead, and then living forever on a planet? Within Christ "dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily," so that means very God has lived, and will again live on a planet. Here's the really weird thing to contemplate in all of this: If there are any other intelligent beings out there in the universe, and if they somehow learn the truth, who could blame them if they come to believe God is a space alien because, after all, he was born on a planet in outer space. Shades of L. Ron Hubbard? No... shades of the Bible.

Edited by Bobbieaware

Share this post


Link to post

So it's anti-Christiam to believe God lives on a planet when the New Textament is all about God being born, living, dying, rising from the dead, and then living forever on a planet? Within Christ "dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily," so that means very God has lived, and will again live on a planet. Here's the really weird thing to contemplate in all of this: If there are any other intelligent beings out there in the universe, and if they somehow learn the truth, who could blame them if they come to believe God is a space alien because, after all, he was born on a planet in outer space. Shades of L. Ron Hubbard? No... shades of the Bible.

Perhaps people see a difference in understanding.

One, believes God Incarnated. Lowered Himself for a while, became man, lived among us, died, resurrected Himself, and then returned to heaven. Heaven not something that exists in creation, such as another planet, but outside of creation.

While the other, believes Gods live on planets and one of these Gods left one of these planets, visited planet Earth for a little while to live, die, be resurrected and returned to the planet from whence he came.

I agree though, that mocking these differences serves no purpose. But the difference is very stark to a non-Mormon.

Edited by saemo

Share this post


Link to post

saemo was well-aware of the unorthodox nature of Mormon claims and was merely pointing out that normative Christianity takes a very different view, perhaps (in your lingo) mingling Greek philosophy with Scripture. That is why Mormons are widely (and correctly) regarded as heretics by the mainstream Christian community. If we are not true heretics by normative Christian standards, then there is no point to our existence. We should be proud of our heretical status, since it gets us back to true biblical religion. Which is the whole point of the "Restoration."

Norbert Samuelson, "That the God of the Philosophers is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob," Harvard Theological Review, 65 (1972):1-27.

Georg Picht, “The God of the Philosophers,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 48/1 (1980):61-79. Online at http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/content/XLVIII/1/61.abstract .

Ernst W. Benz, “Imagio Dei: Man in the Image of God,” in T. Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism (Provo, 1978), 201-219 = “Der Mensch als Imago Dei,” in Eranos Jahrbuch 40 (1971), and also published in Urbild und Abbild: Der Mensch und die mythische Welt: gesammelte Eranos-Beitrage (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 326,

Regardless of how one feels about the doctrine of progressive deification, one thing is certain: Joseph Smith’s anthropology of man is closer to the concept of man in the primitive church than that of the proponents of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, who considered the idea of such a fundamental and corporeal relationship between God and man as the quintessential heresy.

Yohanan Muffs, “Agent of the Lord, Warrior for the People: The Prophet’s Paradox,” Bible Review, 18/6 (Dec 2002):23,

[T]he biblical God is anthropomorphic. Whoever strips God of his personal quality distorts the true meaning of Scripture.

These guys are all non-Mormon and they depict God in ways which only Mormons can understand and accept. Normative Christians are the true heretics since they do not believe in the God of the Bible, but have unwittingly replaced the true God with a Greek philosophical substitute of their own design.
No doubt, Christians understand God in light of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. The apology by the ECF Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, ties the two together very well, as does the Book of Hebrews of course. Christ changes the understanding of God, from the OT to the NT. This is an undeniable aspect of Christianity.

I think there can also be no doubt, that the Gods of Mormonism is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Edited by saemo

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps people see a difference in understanding.

One, believes God Incarnated. Lowered Himself for a while, became man, lived among us, died, resurrected Himself, and then returned to heaven. Heaven not something that exists in creation, such as another planet, but outside of creation.

While the other, believes Gods live on planets and one of these Gods left one of these planets, visited planet Earth for a little while to live, die, be resurrected and returned to the planet from whence he came.

I agree though, that mocking these differences serves no purpose. But the difference is very stark to a non-Mormon.

 

I don't think I have ever thought of God living on a specific planet; more that he is found in a place rather than a ethereal presence that is never localized. This does not limit that his spirit can be felt everywhere; just that his personhood, as a Trinitarian would state, and a LDS would say his body, is found in a location.  I think this is the bigger distinction between traditional Trinitarian beliefs and the teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ - God has a body of flesh and bone just as the Savior, Jesus Christ has.  This physicality is what jars so many Trinitarians. 

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think I have ever thought of God living on a specific planet; more that he is found in a place rather than a ethereal presence that is never localized. This does not limit that his spirit can be felt everywhere; just that his personhood, as a Trinitarian would state, and a LDS would say his body, is found in a location. I think this is the bigger distinction between traditional Trinitarian beliefs and the teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ - God has a body of flesh and bone just as the Savior, Jesus Christ has. This physicality is what jars so many Trinitarians.

"The great architect, manager and superintendent, controller and dictator [absolute ruler] who guides this work is out of sight to our natural eyes. He lives on another world;"

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-4?lang=eng

This idea, as I understand it, goes along with a created God of flesh and bone, who therefore does not transcend that of which he is a part of. In this understanding of God, it is logical to conclude God would need a space in which to reside.

My understanding is, heaven is a place, but is not a space. Transcending creation, existing outside of it. God being Creator, but not created. Jesus' glorified body did not reside in a space, as evidenced by transcending that which is created. The wood and mud of walls and doors.

Edited by saemo

Share this post


Link to post

Not being snarky, but makes that absolutely no sense. This non physical immortal God comes from another non physical God living in a non physical place outside of reality. Tells everyone to become like him. Then is voluntarily murdered so he can come back to life. Just  to return to a non physical place that is not here but in a non reality place. Tells people that at some undisclosed time he is to ditch that non physical body again to return to physical reality and usher in an era of immortal peace and prosperity. Forgive me for saying this but if that is normative Christianity I'd rather be a heretic.

Share this post


Link to post

Not being snarky, but makes that absolutely no sense. This non physical immortal God comes from another non physical God living in a non physical place outside of reality. Tells everyone to become like him. Then is voluntarily murdered so he can come back to life. Just  to return to a non physical place that is not here but in a non reality place. Tells people that at some undisclosed time he is to ditch that non physical body again to return to physical reality and usher in an era of immortal peace and prosperity. Forgive me for saying this but if that is normative Christianity I'd rather be a heretic.

I don't believe your caricature either. So we have that in common.

 

Mormonism is not a heresy, and neither are most individual Mormons. Heresy requires first, an accent to orthodoxy, followed by a willful rejection of orthodoxy for what is heterodox.

 

Heretical religions, from a Catholic POV, are those which broke from orthodoxy. Schismatics, are those that break from communion, but remain orthodox. If you aren't one of those, you are non-Christian (from a Catholic POV). Individuals are heretics when post-baptism, there is an obstinate denial of divine and revealed catholic truth.

 

So for example, Martin Luther was a heretic who founded a religion in heresy, but individual Lutherans today are not heretics unless they have first accented to orthodoxy.

Edited by saemo

Share this post


Link to post

No doubt, Christians understand God in light of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. The apology by the ECF Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, ties the two together very well, as does the Book of Hebrews of course. Christ changes the understanding of God, from the OT to the NT. This is an undeniable aspect of Christianity.

Yes, and the Early Church Fathers unwittingly authored, incrementally, the Great Apostasy, as pointed out in detail by Hugh Nibley, “The Passing of the Primitive Church: Forty Variations on an Unpopular Theme,” Church History, 20 (June 1961):131-154, online at  http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/transcript/the-passing-of-the-primitive-church-forty-variations-on-an-unpopular-theme/ , which has never been refuted, even though it is a major non-Mormon, academic, refereed journal.

 

I think there can also be no doubt, that the Gods of Mormonism is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Yet scholarly opinion, represented above by Norbert Samuelson, makes it clear that the God of the Bible (and of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) is not the God of normative Christianity.  Mainstream Christians, Jews, and Muslims all miss the boat on that great biblical tradition, since they have all allowed the religion of Abraham and his successors to be refracted through a Greek philosophical lens.  The Early Church Fathers admired that great Greek philosophical edifice and wanted to bring Christianity into the same high level of respect, but they betrayed true religion in the process and left the Bible behind.

 

On the other hand, the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic tradition (the Sacred Deposit of the Faith) in particular comes down from great antiquity, even entailing 3,000 years of ancient Egyptian religious tradition.  This is something that the Protestant Reformation was not able to jettison.  It was too ingrained and respectable.

 

The vast majority of Christians, Jews, and Muslims today have no idea that paganism is the true source of their fundamental religious belief.  However, in the age of the Enlightenment and modern science, many now see that they were sold a bill of goods and are now abandoning organized religion as useless and irrational -- as Pew Research shows.  This is a shame since religion in general can have many positive values and is good for the community.

 

It also means that Mormonism is considered guilty by association, even though it does not share that same foundation of sand.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't believe your caricature either. So we have that in common.

 

Mormonism is not a heresy, and neither are most individual Mormons. Heresy requires first, an accent to orthodoxy, followed by a willful rejection of orthodoxy for what is heterodox.

 

Heretical religions, from a Catholic POV, are those which broke from orthodoxy. Schismatics, are those that break from communion, but remain orthodox. If you aren't one of those, you are non-Christian (from a Catholic POV). Individuals are heretics when post-baptism, there is an obstinate denial of divine and revealed catholic truth.

 

So for example, Martin Luther was a heretic who founded a religion in heresy, but individual Lutherans today are not heretics unless they have first accented to orthodoxy.

You err, saemo, since most Mormons came from mainstream Christianity and rejected it.  However, all Mormons are heretics from the point of view of normative Christian creeds.

 

I think it nice of the Roman Catholic Church to refer to all denominations of Christianity as "separated brethren," rather than using vitriol.  However, that doesn't actually make them any less heretical from the POV of Thomism.

Share this post


Link to post

I think this RLH was probably insane, and people in the religion don't realize the insanity.  But then OTH, I wonder what people think of me and my religion.  We are a little off the beaten path of Christianity.  I never realized until now and learning of things in that religion, that people might look at me like I look at Scientologists. 

Share this post


Link to post

I think this RLH was probably insane, and people in the religion don't realize the insanity.  But then OTH, I wonder what people think of me and my religion.  We are a little off the beaten path of Christianity.  I never realized until now and learning of things in that religion, that people might look at me like I look at Scientologists.

I just wanted to chime in one more time on this one, in light of bobbieaware, saemo, and tacienda's last posts, that it is easier to understand how people get caught up in Scientology once you see it from an inner perspective.  Granted, my mom was in 15 years and I didn't see her much during that time so what I've learned comes second hand, but there are some differences between Scientology "space theology" and Mormonism, and you must realize the religious aspect of Scientology is hidden in your first several years, and only about 5 percent of them even know about it, if they did many would also think it weird and leave the church.

The church is sold as a series of self-help courses following a personality test.  You take courses by LRH to help you with whatever you need helping with: communication, study skills, marriage problems, and are introduced to the Dianetics book.  This gets you started up a series of increasingly expensive courses and therapy sessions (auditing), to help you get rid of past bad experiences supposedly holding you back so you become "clear."  You have to face all past memories, even from past lives, while on a crude lie detector called an e-meter.  It may cost $100,000 at this point, but it induces euphoria because you just got all these problems off your chest.

Here comes the religion part.  Problems keep happening in your life so something else must be holding you back.  After being clear you now have to be an "operating thetan."  The small portion of the people who make it this high up the chart learn an evil overlord Xenu blew us up in a volcano, forced us to watch a film about God, Christ, and Satan for many days before coming to our bodies on this planet from another planet.  The souls who didn't get bodies come to this planet as bt's and clusters, stick to our skin, and possess us causing illnesses and upset.  I heard it is also revealed there is no god, Christ was evil and part of the bad aliens, and you cannot rid yourselves of these bad spirits without Scientology.

 

The problem is not with the beliefs.  Mormonism, JWs, and Catholics tell you everything up front.  Scientology is sold as MLM courses (sellers get a commission) that get more and more expensive, and later contradict all other religions.  Some protestant Christians have even taken the courses only to be hit with the later teachings and have to choose between the two faiths.  However, they tell you it is non-denominational and compatible with all religions like freemasonry.  I took the study tech course just for the fun of it and I was told that.  If you told most Scientologists at your local org they would laugh at you and say they have never heard the alien story, and that's true because of the secrecy.  These are some of the reasons people fight the tax exemption, as I said earlier.  The human trafficking thing I recently found out about, but that is definitely another good reason.

As for comparison with Mormonism's Kolob doctrine, anyone, even a non-member can read the Book of Abraham right off the church website, so I think Mormonism is much more open with the public than Scientology

Share this post


Link to post

I just wanted to chime in one more time on this one, in light of bobbieaware, saemo, and tacienda's last posts, that it is easier to understand how people get caught up in Scientology once you see it from an inner perspective. Granted, my mom was in 15 years and I didn't see her much during that time so what I've learned comes second hand, but there are some differences between Scientology "space theology" and Mormonism, and you must realize the religious aspect of Scientology is hidden in your first several years, and only about 5 percent of them even know about it, if they did many would also think it weird and leave the church.

The church is sold as a series of self-help courses following a personality test. You take courses by LRH to help you with whatever you need helping with: communication, study skills, marriage problems, and are introduced to the Dianetics book. This gets you started up a series of increasingly expensive courses and therapy sessions (auditing), to help you get rid of past bad experiences supposedly holding you back so you become "clear." You have to face all past memories, even from past lives, while on a crude lie detector called an e-meter. It may cost $100,000 at this point, but it induces euphoria because you just got all these problems off your chest.

Here comes the religion part. Problems keep happening in your life so something else must be holding you back. After being clear you now have to be an "operating thetan." The small portion of the people who make it this high up the chart learn an evil overlord Xenu blew us up in a volcano, forced us to watch a film about God, Christ, and Satan for many days before coming to our bodies on this planet from another planet. The souls who didn't get bodies come to this planet as bt's and clusters, stick to our skin, and possess us causing illnesses and upset. I heard it is also revealed there is no god, Christ was evil and part of the bad aliens, and you cannot rid yourselves of these bad spirits without Scientology.

The problem is not with the beliefs. Mormonism, JWs, and Catholics tell you everything up front. Scientology is sold as MLM courses (sellers get a commission) that get more and more expensive, and later contradict all other religions. Some protestant Christians have even taken the courses only to be hit with the later teachings and have to choose between the two faiths. However, they tell you it is non-denominational and compatible with all religions like freemasonry. I took the study tech course just for the fun of it and I was told that. If you told most Scientologists at your local org they would laugh at you and say they have never heard the alien story, and that's true because of the secrecy. These are some of the reasons people fight the tax exemption, as I said earlier. The human trafficking thing I recently found out about, but that is definitely another good reason.

As for comparison with Mormonism's Kolob doctrine, anyone, even a non-member can read the Book of Abraham right off the church website, so I think Mormonism is much more open with the public than Scientology

This is why I believe the church should be up front about the temple, even take classes before baptism. Keep most of it sacred, but there are ways to talk about it. Especially since people can view the whole thing online. Or at least the old one. And they should be aware of the temple questions. They shouldn't be like the Scientologist and don't know about the meat or their alien theory.

I remember working in SLC and walking by some Scientology set up where they were trying to get everyone to take those tests. I almost did but changed my mind. Then later, married with kids, they called on the phone, solicited me about the religion. I could sense that it was wrong. And even asked if they believed in God. He said he did but it didn't sound very convincing. One thing is they do a lot of work to get to where they're told they need to be. And it seems Mormonism is also a works based church. But get a feeling of the spirit that the LDS church could be true, but with that phone call, something told me immediately that he wasn't preaching God.

Share this post


Link to post

This is why I believe the church should be up front about the temple, even take classes before baptism. Keep most of it sacred, but there are ways to talk about it. Especially since people can view the whole thing online. Or at least the old one. And they should be aware of the temple questions. They shouldn't be like the Scientologist and don't know about the meat or their alien theory.

I remember working in SLC and walking by some Scientology set up where they were trying to get everyone to take those tests. I almost did but changed my mind. Then later, married with kids, they called on the phone, solicited me about the religion. I could sense that it was wrong. And even asked if they believed in God. He said he did but it didn't sound very convincing. One thing is they do a lot of work to get to where they're told they need to be. And it seems Mormonism is also a works based church. But get a feeling of the spirit that the LDS church could be true, but with that phone call, something told me immediately that he wasn't preaching God.

 

Even if the whole endowment is on-line. I have made strict covenants not to reveal specific content except in a specific time in the Temple.

 

We are not a works based church. The atonement of Christ is a free gift to all those that want it.

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...