Where Did Earth's Moon Come From? (According To Mormons)

[pogi]

Option #3 -- God is the one who commands us. (We take orders from)

 

Option #4 -- God is Love (the epitome of Divine Grace, loved and giving love)

 

Options 3 and 4 are not mutually exclusive, but perhaps I digress. 

Edited March 12, 2015 by pogi

[cinepro]

I cannot believe that you do not understand this.

 

The church teaches that Christ is the "way, the truth and the life" and is the source of "living water".

 

Is he paved in concrete and a trough to water horses as well?

 

If Brigham Young taught that he was and the Church reiterated it in a recent article in the Ensign, then if someone asked "Do Mormons believe Jesus is paved in concrete and a trough to water horses" I would have to show them that quote and admit that to the degree that our leaders speak for the Church, yes we do.

[Uncle Dale]

So are a lot of investigators asking where Mormons believe the moon come from?

 

Back in 1950, or 1970, or even 1990, no.

 

But, today, when the door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesman 

shows up, before he ends his pitch, I can be on my i-pad,

checking out what comments other customers have left

regarding the Handy-Dandy Ajax Vacuum Corp.

 

In 1970 I would have laughed at the notion that any serious

investigator would go to the trouble of ordering a Tanners'

pamphlet, reading about LDS concepts of the moon, or of

carrying the gospel to the moon, or of moon-inhabitants.

 

That would have seemed silly. Would a family living in, say,

Brazil, really be THAT interested in such obscure matters,

when contemplating joining the Church? No, of course not.

 

But this is 2015, and not 1970. A ten-second web-search can

produce so many articles, images and videos regarding LDS

and the moon (not to mention moon Quakers), as to crowd out

the LDS.org statements, and provide for hours of "off-topic"

investigator confusion and distraction.

 

I suspect that the situation I mention will only grow more intense

in the future. It may be useful for people like the FAIR apologists

to address all of these "off-topic" issues in greater detail.

 

UD

[UtahTexan]

If Brigham Young taught that he was and the Church reiterated it in a recent article in the Ensign, then if someone asked "Do Mormons believe Jesus is paved in concrete and a trough to water horses" I would have to show them that quote and admit that to the degree that our leaders speak for the Church, yes we do.

 

Just be careful.  It can be pretty involved to see what past of all Churches have done and said about certain things.  When I was Catholic, I was often amazed at what leaders did.....said....hid....and swept.

[UtahTexan]

If it is LDS doctrine that your Heavenly Mother had Divine Parents,

then that is one "fork" in the doctrinal pathway. If, on the other hand,

She is also a progressed spirit-child of Eloheim, then that presents

another possible path to "more truth."

 

For option #1 (Heavenly Mother was the spirit-child of other Divine

Beings), the logical conclusion is that Eloheim Himself also was once

a spirit-child of Divine Beings.

 

For option #2 (Heavenly Mother was one of Eloheim's own spirit-children)

the possible conclusion is that earthlings' "ancestral eternal family" goes

back no earlier than Eloheim Himself -- and we need not think or ask

about such entities as a Heavenly Grandfather.

 

There is also a secondary consideration, I suppose, and it lies in the

old controversy of whether mercy can rob justice?

 

Option #3 -- God is the one who commands us. (We take orders from)

 

Option #4 -- God is Love (the epitome of Divine Grace, loved and giving love)

 

If I only concentrate upon Option #3, perhaps there is no need to ask whether

or not Heavenly Grandfather loves me. My relationship with Eloheim is that

of a soldier who takes orders, obeys, and does not question.

 

UD

 

Again...this is important...why?

 

How does this affect my salvation?  

 

Does it?

 

Have you had a rush of investigators on this board asking about the Moon and Heavenly Mother?

Edited March 12, 2015 by CountryBoy

[pogi]

It may be useful for people like the FAIR apologists

to address all of these "off-topic" issues in greater detail.

 

It would simply read, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints takes no official position on these "off-topic" issues.

[ksfisher]

 

But this is 2015, and not 1970. A ten-second web-search can

produce so many articles, images and videos regarding LDS

and the moon (not to mention moon Quakers), as to crowd out

the LDS.org statements, and provide for hours of "off-topic"

investigator confusion and distraction.

 

 

UD

 

The curse of having too much information and not knowing what to do with it.  The noise will always drowned out the signal if the right filtering system is not in place.

[Uncle Dale]

Again...this is important...why?

 

How does this affect my salvation?  

 

Does it?

 

Have you had a rush of investigators on this board asking about the Moon and Heavenly Mother?

 

I view "salvation" in temporal terms -- so, you will be saved

from nothing more than having to compose web forum

postings, if you accept the concept of Heavenly Grandparents,

or reject it, or simply move on to other, more practical things.

 

As for myself, about the only meaningful contributions I expect

to make to the world knowledge bank are the occasional notes

and comments which I append to transcriptions of old newspaper

clippings, and afterwards upload to the web.

 

About every other day, I receive an e-mail (and more rarely an

actual letter) informing me that I have made some mistake in such

notes and comments. -- So, I go back, review the stuff, and perhaps

follow some suggestions intended to make what I said more factual.

 

Most of the seemingly odd-ball questions I ask in a forum like this

one, relate directly to my research reading and to something I'm

reviewing for less transitory web-posting.

 

So, to give a short answer. My questions may not have any effect

upon you or your view of life, but the answers I receive do end up

having a little effect, elsewhere and for a different readership.

 

UD

[UtahTexan]

I view "salvation" in temporal terms -- so, you will be saved

from nothing more than having to compose web forum

postings, if you accept the concept of Heavenly Grandparents,

or reject it, or simply move on to other, more practical things.

 

As for myself, about the only meaningful contributions I expect

to make to the world knowledge bank are the occasional notes

and comments which I append to transcriptions of old newspaper

clippings, and afterwards upload to the web.

 

About every other day, I receive an e-mail (and more rarely an

actual letter) informing me that I have made some mistake in such

notes and comments. -- So, I go back, review the stuff, and perhaps

follow some suggestions intended to make what I said more factual.

 

Most of the seemingly odd-ball questions I ask in a forum like this

one, relate directly to my research reading and to something I'm

reviewing for less transitory web-posting.

 

So, to give a short answer. My questions may not have any effect

upon you or your view of life, but the answers I receive do end up

having a little effect, elsewhere and for a different readership.

 

UD

 

So, essentially, you gave a non-answer.

 

I truly did not expect one....you seem to get pleasure from what you do, no matter how folks feel about it, so I understand your need.

 

I was just curious.  Thank you for your response.

[mfbukowski]

If Brigham Young taught that he was and the Church reiterated it in a recent article in the Ensign, then if someone asked "Do Mormons believe Jesus is paved in concrete and a trough to water horses" I would have to show them that quote and admit that to the degree that our leaders speak for the Church, yes we do.

This post will stand on its own merits for the ages as a testament to.......

 

Well let's just what it shows has nothing to do with Brigham Young or the church or what either believes about anything.

[mfbukowski]

Back in 1950, or 1970, or even 1990, no.

 

But, today, when the door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesman 

shows up, before he ends his pitch, I can be on my i-pad,

checking out what comments other customers have left

regarding the Handy-Dandy Ajax Vacuum Corp.

 

In 1970 I would have laughed at the notion that any serious

investigator would go to the trouble of ordering a Tanners'

pamphlet, reading about LDS concepts of the moon, or of

carrying the gospel to the moon, or of moon-inhabitants.

 

That would have seemed silly. Would a family living in, say,

Brazil, really be THAT interested in such obscure matters,

when contemplating joining the Church? No, of course not.

 

But this is 2015, and not 1970. A ten-second web-search can

produce so many articles, images and videos regarding LDS

and the moon (not to mention moon Quakers), as to crowd out

the LDS.org statements, and provide for hours of "off-topic"

investigator confusion and distraction.

 

I suspect that the situation I mention will only grow more intense

in the future. It may be useful for people like the FAIR apologists

to address all of these "off-topic" issues in greater detail.

 

UD

Not necessary.

 

Teaching a little epistemology can wipe away all the problems in about an hour.  And an atheist does it best right here.  I will post this yet in again in hopes someone will actually watch

[mfbukowski]

It would simply read, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints takes no official position on these "off-topic" issues.

Don't confuse us with the truth. 

[mfbukowski]

What such an investigator would really be asking, is "After I join and start

living as you folks do, what will i be required to accept and profess?"

 

"You will be required to believe whatever you need to believe in order to honestly, as judged in your heart, pass a temple recommend interview"

 

Orthopraxis not orthodoxy.  And none of this stuff is in that category.

 

But we have discussed this already a hundred times haven't we?   http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/04/is-there-any-mormon-doctrine/

Edited March 12, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Uncle Dale]

Don't confuse us with the truth.

Previously I asked what was official LDS doctrine,

and was told it consists of the Standard Works,

Messages of the First Presidency and the Temple

Endowment instruction.

If that remains the correct answer, then nothing

else distributed or promoted by Mormons is official

doctrine, including what the missionaries may

have to say, which does not quote these sources

directly and correctly.

Thus, when I ask what Mormons believe, I am

almost always looking for personal and popular

beliefs particular (and usually unique) to the

LDS membership, and not for referral back to

those three sources.

UD

And if the third one has changed since gr-gr-gr

Grandpa went through the Endowment House

in 1854, I have no reliable access to it anyway.

[Ahab]

You have criticized what you think my estimation of you is- but you don't know how I "really" see you.

I was trying to be funny when I said you talk to me sometimes as if I am stoopid. What I didn't say is that sometimes it helps me to understand you when you talk to me as if I am stoopid, breaking your points down for me into very simple terms so that I can (better) understand what you mean.

I see you as a very bright guy who is kind of fixed in his way of seeing things and not particularly open to seeing things in new ways.

New ways of seeing things? Haven't I tried every way already??? Hmm. I suppose if I haven't then I wouldn't know it, but I do at least try to see things from all perspectives even when some ways are the wrong ways.

[pogi]

Thus, when I ask what Mormons believe, I am

almost always looking for personal and popular

beliefs particular (and usually unique) to the

LDS membership, and not for referral back to

those three sources.

 

That is useful in cultural anthropology, but useless in gaining a testimony of our doctrines. 

 

If that remains the correct answer, then nothing 

else distributed or promoted by Mormons is official 

doctrine, including what the missionaries may 

have to say, which does not quote these sources 

directly and correctly.

 

 

Lucky for us, the missionaries never encourage members to simply take their word for it.  They encourage to read it for themselves and to pray to know if what they read is true. 

Edited March 12, 2015 by pogi

[Ahab]

Previously I asked what was official LDS doctrine,

and was told it consists of the Standard Works,

Messages of the First Presidency and the Temple

Endowment instruction.

If that remains the correct answer, then nothing

else distributed or promoted by Mormons is official

doctrine, including what the missionaries may

have to say, which does not quote these sources

directly and correctly.

Thus, when I ask what Mormons believe, I am

almost always looking for personal and popular

beliefs particular (and usually unique) to the

LDS membership, and not for referral back to

those three sources.

UD

And if the third one has changed since gr-gr-gr

Grandpa went through the Endowment House

in 1854, I have no reliable access to it anyway.

I like your approach, Uncle and Brother Dale.

I'm interested in all theological ideas that are true and that our Father would like us to know, whether or not they are or should be classified as "official doctrine" or "canon", and I like to see that curiousity and zeal for more knowledge in others.

[Uncle Dale]

I like your approach, Uncle and Brother Dale.

I'm interested in all theological ideas that are true and that our Father would like us to know, whether or not they are or should be classified as "official doctrine" or "canon", and I like to see that curiousity and zeal for more knowledge in others.

 

The Mormons are not the only people who run into this sort of

questioning (both among members and from outsiders) -- so it

really isn't something unusual or necessarily of hostile intent.

 

Roman Catholics, Scientologists, Reform Jews, Zen monks --

all of these sectarians have developed useful ways of responding

to what seems to be useless, or even ridiculous questioning.

 

Try to ask a Scientologist for unique information about volcanoes

and volcanic activity in earth's distant past, and you may meet

with some responses similar in tone to what I see here.

 

As you say, "I like your approach." It's you. And, as I said before,

it comes across as authentic and ready to learn more. That makes

for interesting conversation, even when the topics are controversial

ones. I get a good feeling from that kind of discussion.

 

I once listened to a couple of experts discussing the kind of hat

Mormon men typically wore during the Kirtland period. Seems that

the broad-brimmed variety, sometimes associated with Quakers

and old-fashioned gospel preachers was the favored style.

 

Then, in Missouri, the Saints abandoned that New England Sunday

Go To Meeting hat for something more along the lines of what the

frontiersmen were wearing.

 

None of that discussion even remotely touched upon anything in

the Scriptures or prophetic pronouncements. If broad-brimmed hats

at Kirtland had any special significance at all, the reason was lost

to the "experts" memory. Still -- it was a fascinating talk for a guy

like myself to listen in on. Totally "Mormon" yet hardly religious.

 

I'm still that kind of listener.

 

UD

(But when it comes to talking... well, you see what happens)

[saemo]

I am not speaking for him because I don't know what he believes.  Mormon doctrine is vague enough on that that there are some who might indeed believe that, and others who do not.

 

I personally do not speculate on such matters, to me God is the master of everything we can possibly know about.  If there are other "Gods" they are irrelevant to humanity and are beyond what we wormy little beings can possibly comprehend anyway so speculation or even discussion about the matter makes no sense.

 

For me, stories about Kolob are to be taken figuratively to show us our spiritual place in the universe, that God is near to us and that in principle he is indeed in a "physical place".  As a Catholic I could not understand how Christ's resurrected physical body could be "everywhere" and still be physical, and for me, this is a better answer than the idea that it is a "mystery".   It is still a mystery but the attempt to answer the question speaks volumes about what we believe about space and physicality

 

I take such stories about the way I take the story of Noah- as being for my spiritual welfare.  Could they "be true" in a conventional sense?  Of course they COULD BE but I have no need to believe that they "actually are" since it is unknowable either way.

 

What is important in Mormon doctrine is that God is our father and is infinitely above us in every respect to the point where he is pretty incomprehensible on one hand but on the other we know we can become like him after an eternity or two of doing our absolute best and following every prompting he gives us.

 

The rest might as well be Star Wars or some other fantasy.  There is no controlling what others believe

As a Catholic, God as the creator of time and existing outside of it, with body or not, makes way more sense to me than intragalactic super humans who move planets with their super powers and reside in supermassive black holes (seriously?). Sorry, the whole idea just sounds make believe to me.

Edited March 12, 2015 by saemo

[JLHPROF]

 

There is no statement in canonized doctrine that God has a "father".   It makes sense that he does, it is believed pretty universally, but there are no statements in canonized doctrine saying that.  It is found only in King Follett Discourse which is not doctrinal.

 

Revelation 1

⁵ And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

⁶ And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

 

Christ made us Kings and Priests unto God and his Father.

[JLHPROF]

As a Catholic, God as the creator of time and existing outside of it, with body or not, makes way more sense to me than intragalactic super humans who move planets with their super powers and reside in supermassive black holes (seriously?). Sorry, the whole idea just sounds make believe to me.

 

It's all in the phrasing...you can make anything sound stupid if you phrase it a certain way.  We've been doing it to the Nicene Creed for decades.  You've been doing it to Mormonism for decades.

 

I believe (and don't quote me on this - I'm no expert) it's called Reductio Ad Absurdum.

[Uncle Dale]

As a Catholic, God as the creator of time and existing outside of it, with body or not, makes way more sense to me than inter-galactic super humans who move planets with their super powers and reside in supermassive black holes (seriously?). Sorry, the whole idea just sounds make believe to me.

Then there are those who would tell us that God is the creator of

existence itself. Whether anything even "exists" (in the way that

human language seeks to communicate) is a fascinating question

in and of itself.

But, supposing that the Mormon notion of eternally existing intelligent

matter is in any way scientifically defensible, the pondering mind is

still led off into trying to comprehend infinity, endlessness, and the

inter-relationship of all things. If the word "God" is not applicable

to such discussion, then I can find no term that makes better

sense to me.

Existence? My thoughts and heart rebel against God confined

by existence, even more than progressed human godlings

confined in bodies of flesh and bone.

UD

[Ahab]

As a Catholic, God as the creator of time and existing outside of it, with body or not, makes way more sense to me than intragalactic super humans who move planets with their super powers and reside in supermassive black holes (seriously?). Sorry, the whole idea just sounds make believe to me.

When you use the word "God" try substituting the word "we" in it's place, or if that's too big of a stretch for you then substitute the word "God" with "our Father" or "our Lord" while realizing they are people, real people, more perfect and more intelligent than us in our mortal bodies right now but still people who are the same kind of being we are and the embodiment of the best kind of people we can possibly be.

Heck, we can create time as mortals right now, and it is something that we are outside of. Time is simply a tool for measuring existence and we can adjust our time cycles by whatever we choose to measure against. Daylight savings time, for example, based roughly on lunar cycles. We would still exist if we didn't use time to measure things. Now you just need to learn that everything that exists has always existed in some form or fashion, including God.

[Ahab]

Existence? My thoughts and heart rebel against God confined by existence, even more than progressed human godlings confined in bodies of flesh and bone.

UD

Confined by existence? If God was outside of existence that would mean God wouldn't exist.

And, uh, yeah, people come in bodies, whether a spirit body or a mortal body or a glorified resurrected body.

[Uncle Dale]

Confined by existence? If God was outside of existence that would mean God wouldn't exist.

Precisely. God does not exist, God causes existence.

God is not a part of time and space, God causes time and space.

God is not separate from material objects, God is within,

without -- as close as the centers of our hearts and as far

as transcendence is comprehendable.

We do not become gods -- we realize that we are that already,

and infinitely more than that.

But such teachings do not go over very well in junior

Sunday school, nor even in Vatican Councils.

It is the provenance of the sandal-less Religious and of the

Upanishads -- of infinite grace and boundless lovingkindness.

UD

(not preaching, mods -- just waxing poetic)