Mormonism & Scientology Compared

[bjw]

This is an interesting point, and I do think people should learn at least about the masonic similarities first, so that if antis tell them later they won't feel betrayed. I already knew this because I read articles on fair before becoming LDS, so if even the equivalent of what fair reveals were given it would at least soften the blow.

Both are works oriented, but the works in Mormonism seem more like an outflow of faith, whereas Scientology is a pay as you go system of courses.

[theplains]

This is an interesting point, and I do think people should learn at least about the masonic similarities first, so that if antis tell them later they won't feel betrayed.

 

Does the LDS Church forbid non-temple-going Mormons from joining the Masonic Lodge?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Calm]

No

[KevinG]

Agreed, but we ARE a little more so.  From the worlds without number, to the Book of Abraham, to the North Star, to the symbols on and in the temple, to some less accepted doctrines and anecdotes - Mormons don't limit their perspectives to this little planet at all.

 

When people accuse me of wanting my own planet I tell them they are thinking small.  I want to be a join heir with Christ and have my own creations.

[sunstoned]

Does the LDS Church forbid non-temple-going Mormons from joining the Masonic Lodge?

 

Thanks,

Jim

I have several friends who are both Mormons and Masons.

[Joshua Valentine]

He doesn't know that much about either Mormonism or Scientology if he thinks both are equally focused on space.

I agree with him about the religion issue though.

 

bluebell, do you just disagree that they are "equally" focused on space or do you disagree with the word "focused". They're both highly space-oriented considering that entities completely contained in and dependent on the physical universe are in the creative/salvific position often otherwise held by a transcending-all-other-existence God.

 

Agreed, but we ARE a little more so.  From the worlds without number, to the Book of Abraham, to the North Star, to the symbols on and in the temple, to some less accepted doctrines and anecdotes - Mormons don't limit their perspectives to this little planet at all.

[Joshua Valentine]

Kolob not withstanding ALL Christians are space alien oriented. A father God in Heaven(Not this planet) has a child then sends that child to this planet. Who then dies and goes back to that father God in Heaven(Not this planet). Further this father Gods' child is supposed to return from Heaven(Not this planet) and all those not Gods are put somewhere else. I won't even get into where the Devils come from or go to.

 

This seems to be an oversimplification. Simply that something "not from this planet" is involved does not necessarily mean that it is a "space alien". The entity is by definition "alien" to our world, since it is "not this planet", but that's just a restatement of the premise, otherwise known as circular. Also, being "alien" or "not this planet" is not sufficient to be considered "from space". If you had left it as "alien oriented" then I could just stop here, agreeing that "all Christians" are other-than-this-planet-oriented and clarifying that "alien" does not mean Sigourney Weaver "Alien".

 

But by saying "all Christians are space alien oriented", I believe you have at least oversimplified or maybe, although it is doubtful considering what I know of you, you think non-LDS Christian theology is actually similar to LDS theology in this regard to cosmology. While in LDS theology the entities known as "Gods" and who play a part in creation and salvation are in fact taught to be completely contained and dependent on the universe, or "system of existence" if you will, non-LDS Christian theology is clear that God transcends all existence. So, in Mormonism you have god-like entities that are literally in space and in traditional Christianity you have God who may enter space but is not dependent on it in any way and is generally considered to exist primarily outside of space.

 

So, it seems clear that not all Christians are space alien oriented.

[Joshua Valentine]

Well, I guess I am pleasantly surprised at Tyson's even-handedness on this.  Sometimes he seems at least borderline militant atheist himself.  Good on ya, Dr. Tyson!  I suppose that Tyson is thinking of the legend that Mormons get their own planets or something.  It would be nice to know what he thinks he knows about us.

 

 

Agreed, but we ARE a little more so.  From the worlds without number, to the Book of Abraham, to the North Star, to the symbols on and in the temple, to some less accepted doctrines and anecdotes - Mormons don't limit their perspectives to this little planet at all.

 

Stargazer, it seems unlikely, and unnecessary to assume, that Tyson is only going on "own planets" in his statements here when there is plenty of other sources, as represented by JLHPROF.

 

Also, is there a previous thread somewhere that the discussion successfully showed that "the legend that Mormons get their own planet" is not at all supported by all the teachings taught in official manuals, magazines, and GC about "other worlds" and exaltation, despite "world" and "planet" being synonyms?

[Joshua Valentine]

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!"

 

I fail to see how setting up the situation as "on another planet", which inserts a necessarily "space alien" or "space other" aspect, suddenly makes the theology itself actually "space alien". I sense you are trying to represent traditional Christian theology but it is so obviously skewed by LDS perspective that it is effectively a misrepresentation that doesn't make your point at all.

 

An example would be that simply because the events are being related on another planet and thus are technically, in relation to that planet, in "space" and "alien" to that planet, does not take away from the perspective in traditional Christianity that God is from outside all existence, not just Earth or space. So, as I said above, "alien" is ok, I guess since God is "other" and that's all that alien means in this case, but "space" is not accurate. God and the traditional Christian Gospel are not "space alien", they are other than Creation. Since Earth and this hypothetical other planet are both part of Creation, there is no difference, God and the Gospel are still coming into Creation. It matters not whether the Gospel events happened on another continent, the Middle East, or another planet, it loses no potency for geographical or astronomical distances.

[Joshua Valentine]

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...

 

Ah, I see this as confirming the LDS Perspective I suspected above. The two stories you are comparing in relation to another planet are not equivalent and thus seems to show a conflation or misunderstanding on your part.

 

You are saying that, to another planet's population, there would be no difference between Jesus being born on a planet, living, dyeing, and ruling on a planet and the LDS god being born, living, and ruling on a planet (or locale related in some way to Kolob). The problem is that Christians see this aspect of LDS theology different and problematic not because it is in space and time (that would be silly) but because it limits God, what Christians generally think of as the Ultimate that transcends all space time, to having to exist in space-time.

 

It's not the location that is the problem (if it were, then your criticism would be justified); it is the ultimate origin and dependence on the location that is the problem.

[Joshua Valentine]

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!

 

Again, missing the crucial difference of dependence. There is no problem with God going to a planet to do whatever (be born, live, die, rule). It is that Mormonismr claims that this is all God can do, since He is just a creature of the universe and thus has to depend and live in what "created" him.

 

People should hesitate from denouncing other's theological construction materials until they get a closer look.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Joshua Valentine

[thesometimesaint]

This seems to be an oversimplification. Simply that something "not from this planet" is involved does not necessarily mean that it is a "space alien". The entity is by definition "alien" to our world, since it is "not this planet", but that's just a restatement of the premise, otherwise known as circular. Also, being "alien" or "not this planet" is not sufficient to be considered "from space". If you had left it as "alien oriented" then I could just stop here, agreeing that "all Christians" are other-than-this-planet-oriented and clarifying that "alien" does not mean Sigourney Weaver "Alien".

 

But by saying "all Christians are space alien oriented", I believe you have at least oversimplified or maybe, although it is doubtful considering what I know of you, you think non-LDS Christian theology is actually similar to LDS theology in this regard to cosmology. While in LDS theology the entities known as "Gods" and who play a part in creation and salvation are in fact taught to be completely contained and dependent on the universe, or "system of existence" if you will, non-LDS Christian theology is clear that God transcends all existence. So, in Mormonism you have god-like entities that are literally in space and in traditional Christianity you have God who may enter space but is not dependent on it in any way and is generally considered to exist primarily outside of space.

 

So, it seems clear that not all Christians are space alien oriented.

 

I think you're drawing your criticism too far. Alien need not mean nonhuman in the Sigourney Weaver "Alien" sense of the word. If I were to visit Canada I would be considered a non-Canadian(alien) visitor.

 

True, LDS theology prescribes other Children of God(humans) on planets other than our own. This is where traditional Christian has come off the rails. Something that occupies no space, and conversely, occupies all space is oxymoronic.

Edited July 26, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Joshua Valentine]

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

 

Oh, come on thesometimesaint. Do you really think daemon hasn't read the Bible? Do you really think those two verse references sum up or even ultimately determine all that the Bible has said about the nature of God and the nature of Humans. Really?  I don't think you really do.

[Joshua Valentine]

 

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.

 

 

Man this thread has gone through some meanders: political, Christian v. LDS. Sheesh!

 

Without getting all into it. The whole "Greek" accusation is really troublesome, because it seems to cut both ways. It also seems like a form of genetic fallacy. Also, I haven't read their works, but, assuming a traditional Christian perspective, the quotes you used seem fine depending on their extent.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Joshua Valentine

[Joshua Valentine]

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.

 

Here you seem to deliberately ignore the larger theological basis of traditional Christianity - that God came into creation from "outside" of it. So the situation would be the same for any other planet as it was Earth, God visited from outside of all Creation, our Earth and every other planet. Which you then seem to not consider in comparison to LDS theology - that God has his origin and complete being and complete dependence on the natural system. Two different things, which are the real issue, which you seem to be missing.

[Joshua Valentine]

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. 

 

I suspect a few here might, without my and saemo's input, maybe even with, just end up saying its ridiculous for nonLDS Christians to be bothered by God having a body since they believe that Jesus is God and has a body.

 

This type of "ridiculous" position should immediately be questioned if you have any faith in humans or respect for those you are dialoguing with. It is called the "principle of charity".

 

"In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.^{" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity}

 

 

A good principle for any discussion.

 

Again, I don't believe Christians are offended by God, or the Ultimate, simply having a body, but that He HAS TO HAVE a a body, He is limited to  and dependent on a body..

[Joshua Valentine]

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.

 

Oh, man. Thesometimesaint, this shows that you either do not understand or do not want to understand the position of non-LDS Christians. Are you doing alright? Seriously, I can't account for this level of participation by you given what I have experienced from you in the past.

 

Love for you,

Joshua Valentine

[Joshua Valentine]

I think you're drawing your criticism too far. Alien need not mean nonhuman in the Sigourney Weaver "Alien" sense of the word. If I were to visit Canada I would be considered a non-Canadian(alien) visitor.

 

True, LDS theology prescribes other Children of God(humans) on planets other than our own. This is where traditional Christian has come off the rails. Something that occupies no space, and conversely, occupies all space is oxymoronic.

 

I didn't say that alien meant non-human. I said what your example exemplifies, simply that "alien" means "other" or "outsider". I've put in a lot of comments, please consider them carefully for efficiency and productivity of our conversation. Maybe you were distracted.

 

Thanks

[bjw]

Fac 2 of the Book of Abraham shows we are outside of God's reckoning of time, and that planets that have received celestial glory experience 1 day to our 1,000 years, as alluded to by the Bible. The fact the circle represents everything the eye of God sees shows He is outside of all of it.

[Joshua Valentine]

Fac 2 of the Book of Abraham shows we are outside of God's reckoning of time, and that planets that have received celestial glory experience 1 day to our 1,000 years, as alluded to by the Bible. The fact the circle represents everything the eye of God sees shows He is outside of all of it.

 

I'm not sure if this is directed toward my points or not.  If so, the teachings that Heavenly Father is an entity originating in and dependent upon the universe or system of existence, that he is a result of eternal matter and its Eternal Principles or Laws, shows that, however one interprets Fac 2 of the BoA, LDS theology is critically different than non-LDS Christian theology that insists that there is only One Ultimate and it is God, everything else in existence is created by Him and is subordinate to Him. 

 

This makes the non-LDS Christian God quite different than a "space alien" and it makes the LDS God something quite like a "space alien".  So, in this regard at least, Mormonism and Scientology share a certain level of "space-exotic", as Tyson put it.

 

As for you take on Fac 2, despite it's description of the LDS Heavenly Father as semi-transcendent, it still does not take him outside of or above the system of existence, as non-LDS Christian theology insists is the fact, and thus is still more similar to Scientology's technologically transcendent space aliens.

[oremites]

Again, missing the crucial difference of dependence. There is no problem with God going to a planet to do whatever (be born, live, die, rule). It is that Mormonismr claims that this is all God can do, since He is just a creature of the universe and thus has to depend and live in what "created" him.

 

People should hesitate from denouncing other's theological construction materials until they get a closer look.

 

I think your whole argument about why "space alien" applies to LDS theology but not to non-LDS Christianity is a distinction without a difference, but that's all I have to say about that.

 

I do dispute your claim that, according to Mormonism, God is a creature of the universe.  The belief that God created the universe and is wholly the master of it is certainly compatible with Mormon doctrine.  Anyway, I won't be around to discuss this so you're welcome to the last word if you're interested.

[bjw]

I'm not sure if this is directed toward my points or not.  If so, the teachings that Heavenly Father is an entity originating in and dependent upon the universe or system of existence, that he is a result of eternal matter and its Eternal Principles or Laws, shows that, however one interprets Fac 2 of the BoA, LDS theology is critically different than non-LDS Christian theology that insists that there is only One Ultimate and it is God, everything else in existence is created by Him and is subordinate to Him. 

 

This makes the non-LDS Christian God quite different than a "space alien" and it makes the LDS God something quite like a "space alien".  So, in this regard at least, Mormonism and Scientology share a certain level of "space-exotic", as Tyson put it.

 

As for you take on Fac 2, despite it's description of the LDS Heavenly Father as semi-transcendent, it still does not take him outside of or above the system of existence, as non-LDS Christian theology insists is the fact, and thus is still more similar to Scientology's technologically transcendent space aliens.

Scientology teaches the universe was created by us, that we all make up god and all our thetans (souls) were in agreement in a sort of big bang type event. (See axioms section of L. Ron Hubbard's " Handbook for Preclears") The Xenu story in OT 3 takes place millions of years later and only explains how we got from Xenu's planet to this planet. There is no god in Scientology that one shows devotion to except the 8th dynamic, which is what I alluded to earlier and alludes to the agreement of all thetans. This is why they say what's true for you is what is the truth.

The Book of Moses alludes to God being endless, without beginning or end, and therefore transcendent. If fac 2 is from God's perspective, it appears he is apart from the universe. The only thing common in the 2 beliefs I see is other planets beside Earth have life, and there are higher levels that are not revealed to the general public.

[Joshua Valentine]

Scientology teaches the universe was created by us, that we all make up god and all our thetans (souls) were in agreement in a sort of big bang type event. (See axioms section of L. Ron Hubbard's " Handbook for Preclears") The Xenu story in OT 3 takes place millions of years later and only explains how we got from Xenu's planet to this planet. There is no god in Scientology that one shows devotion to except the 8th dynamic, which is what I alluded to earlier and alludes to the agreement of all thetans. This is why they say what's true for you is what is the truth.

The Book of Moses alludes to God being endless, without beginning or end, and therefore transcendent. If fac 2 is from God's perspective, it appears he is apart from the universe. The only thing common in the 2 beliefs I see is other planets beside Earth have life, and there are higher levels that are not revealed to the general public.

 

I appreciate your further elucidation of Scientology. My quite limited understanding of it only reached level 6 or 7, with the "space aliens".

 

Matter is also described by Joseph as having no beginning nor end, so in that regard the LDS God is not transcendent of matter.  And I think I already covered this in this thread: According to Joseph, God did not create matter, matter is independent of God, God is dependent on matter as he is made up of it and his actions are ultimately determined (or limited) by the Eternal Principles or Laws that accompany this matter and rule this system that everything (including the LDS God) is in.

 

As far as the Scientology version of creation. I could possibly see parallels between thetans acting together to create and intelligences acting together to create in a Big Bang-like event. Admittedly a stretch, and an unnecessary one.  Tyson does not need such defense.

[thesometimesaint]

I appreciate your further elucidation of Scientology. My quite limited understanding of it only reached level 6 or 7, with the "space aliens".

 

Matter is also described by Joseph as having no beginning nor end, so in that regard the LDS God is not transcendent of matter.  And I think I already covered this in this thread: According to Joseph, God did not create matter, matter is independent of God, God is dependent on matter as he is made up of it and his actions are ultimately determined (or limited) by the Eternal Principles or Laws that accompany this matter and rule this system that everything (including the LDS God) is in.

 

As far as the Scientology version of creation. I could possibly see parallels between thetans acting together to create and intelligences acting together to create in a Big Bang-like event. Admittedly a stretch, and an unnecessary one.  Tyson does not need such defense.

 

SEE

[Tacenda]

I'm currently watching Leah Remini's exposure on Scientology on A&E on Tuesdays. Then found out about the movie "Going Clear" and the comparison of the two religions, have yet to watch. But already see similarities such as ostracism (some LDS members do this), expectation of monies, climbing a ladder or a bridge (works based), exclaiming they are the only way to reach the highest level, to name a few. 

Both religions have a lot of good as far as the members wanting to better themselves. But I really see that one is evil IMO, and the other, LDS, is not. Too bad people see us as similar.