Talk:Exaltation (Mormonism)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Older[edit]

Can someone decipher this article and write something that isn't verbatim from Mormon canon? Such language doesn't really have a place in Wikipedia, anyways (unless it were to be clearly quoted). Praetorian42 18:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed some bits that weren't relevant to Mormonism. They probably fit better before the page was renamed to be specific to Mormonism, but don't now. They didn't seem significant enough to go back on the disambiguation page. Wesley 17:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This article was the original destination for the word "exaltation" in Wiki. But the word "exaltation" has other (non-theological) meanings and the word needed to be disambiguated. If it's not Mormon, then by all means move it to a re-titled page. That's the only reason I re-titled this material. If you have another solution, please try it. It was never my intention to offend anyone or muddy any other pages. But we need "exaltation" in other contexts. NaySay 05:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Amem....i've slowly been working on one that's not so blatantly out of LDS publications, but I dont always have time to deal with the morons here who will fight an accurate article on this issue dispite how well its sourced. Check my user page and see my sandbox, and see if you can edit my sandbox version...and have at it Alienburrito (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


Havent been here in a while..had forgotten how much this work this article needs..indeed sounds like much of it is out of church promo material...

Alienburrito (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

How came they to believe something they don't know what is?[edit]

The 1st para reads:

Exaltation [...] is a belief among devout members of The Church [...] that mankind, as spirit children of their Father in Heaven, can become like Him. Although the exact meaning of this has not been defined, most Latter-day Saints speculate that this signifies [...]

So... How can I "believe" something if I don't really know what's its meaning? I mean, why do they believe it?

Additionaly, how isn't its meaning defined?? Well, in some point, somebody had to add it to the church's creed, were Smith, his son, or whoever. Did he merely say "Mankind, as spirit children of God, can become like him. Period. No, no, I won't explain it. You better had understood it the first time." ? --euyyn 15:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting questions. What the New Testament teaches is that we become co-inheritors with Christ. What does that mean? Does anyone understand it; did Christ explain it or did say, "Oops, sorry; it is a little too deep for this mornings discussion, let's move on." Obviously not; let's both drop the sarcasm. It is too often interpreted as offensive language and someone who intends to be rude.
Also, does anyone ever understand God? No, there has never been one mortal that has ever lived that has grasped the full meaning of God. Mortals have ideas and think they understand facets of God, but a complete understanding is beyond our comprehension. Remember what the definition faith "It is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."(Heb. 11:1) We are speaking of things of faith; faith does not demand a complete understanding prior to belief or hope. Faith is the spark of belief that is given by the Holy Spirit that can become a flame that burns bright and illumines the darkness of ignorance.
However, it is an excellent scripture to focus on. We are told we will be co-inheritors with Christ. What does Christ inherit? All that the Father has. What doesn't it include or how is the inheritance limited?
LDS believe the inheritance is complete and full. If is a gift of complete grace and union with the Father and the Son. It is the total realization of the prayer of Jesus when he prayed that we might be one as He and His Father are one. As exalted beings we become the complete servants of God and are worthy of being His instruments in the universe. This includes participating in the creation of new worlds. Hope this helps. Storm Rider (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, sarcasm + WP:AGF reduces to humour. Don't think I joke only with things I don't believe in... See, I call the catholic Pope RatzingerZ, for example. Humour is good, always.
What you said is good material, my friend! We should point in the article that the belief derives from those Christ's words. That finishes with my confusion: it's not an introduced belief, but a new interpretation.
Man, I enjoy very much your Christ parodial, I've had some good laughs at it.
We should also add who gave to the church that interpretation: was it Smith? a later leader? What was the context of this introduction in the early history of the church? I mean... was it when Smith ""rewrote"" (I cannot think of a word for it) the New Testament?
God, you Mormons make me mad of curiosity! =D I hope when I finish with you I won't start with muslims, or budhists... --euyyn 02:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Surprisingly this concept began with a general conference talk by Joseph Smith shortly after the funeral of an individual, King Follet. It later came to be known as the King Follett Discourse. This talk was the first talk given by Joseph that really addressed the nature of God, our relationship to him, and exaltation. Though it is not a part of Mormon canon, it is regarded as doctrine.
I believe it to be one of the great discourses on the purpose of creation. Most Christian theology leaves the question in the air without any significant answers...we are created by God to go to heaven to sing praises to God. Some would view this as a rather shallow view of eternity that leaves a major questions, "Why do I have to go through this trial and tribulation so that I can sing praises to God?" and "Why would God need me to sing His praises?".
Exaltation has been expanded upon by other prophets, but at no time has it been completely clarified. Exaltation is closely linked with a concept of eternal progression; our purpose is to progress, to learn, to expand our knowledge for all time and eternity. We do not view eternity as a static existence, but rater dynamic.
I hope this helps. It is a fascinating topic; theosis in the Eastern Orthodox tradition is also fascinating, some of their writings are very similar to LDS writings. There is a lot of denial to that regard, but it is worth reviewing. Cheers. Storm Rider (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


There's much more to the beleif than just returning to God and becoming like God. The phrases chosen here place the beleif in a very positive light - we should be more neutral in our choice of phrases, and accurate as well.

Based on my understanding of the LDS belief (not gonna cite sources HERE, will do that in my sandbox version of the artifcle that i'll post about when i feel its ready) - "Exaltation is a doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints that states belivers will return to God. They also believe that as GOd's children they will become like God." I know this will be controversial, but it has basis in LDS teachings that I can site on their website - i would add "LDS leaders have taught over the years that this idea of being God's children and becoming Like god is literal - we were literaly born to God in heaven, sent to earth, and may eventually become gods ourselves, having children in heaven, and becoming the heavenly parents to those children when they enter mortal existance" - the exact wording needs some work - but there are good official citations for this. Yes, I know there are those who will not want such info published, but it IS accurate - and this IS a reference site 01:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alienburrito (talkcontribs)

This could help[edit]

Although we aren't relating fiction, as we're talking about a belief, I think this applies. It's very interesting and gives many examples we can possibly apply to our text. --euyyn 16:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The real reason they beleive soemthing they dont know what it is[edit]

The real reason for the reference to it being undefined is the LDS Church's policy of dancing around controversial doctrines. If you read the King FOllet sermon at http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm (hosted at Brigham Young U mind you), you'll see that the founder of the Mormon Church, Joseph Smith, taught that God was once a man, lived on an earth, and progressed to the status of deity. He also taught that we as his literal ofspring may also progress to the status of deity and populate our own worlds with our own children. They know as well as anyone that if this was the 1st thing out of the missionaries' mouths, the church would be lucky to have 50 members, instead of the 8million+ they currently have. This is one of the more extreme teachings of the church, of course. There are other very unusual teachings that would turn off many prospective members. A good example is their temple endowment. Members are encouraged to go to the temple to receive their endowments (the term is a referens to being endowed with power from on high). At best, they will tell you that in the temple they learn certain things that enable them to pass the angels that stand as guards at the gates of the Celestial Kingdom, as well as be sealed to their families for eternity, and to do these same things for their dead relatives. WHen it boils down to it, the endowment is about learning hand signs and secret handshakes and passwords, many of which appear to be stolen from Freemasonry. Up until a few years ago there weere also penalties wehre they were made to promise that they would rather have their throats slit rather than reveal the contents of the ritual. That was slowly toned down over the years from specifically saying that they would rather have their throat slit, to just drawing the thumb across the throat from ear to ear, to being completely eliminated in the early 90s. For reference, there are recordings made surepeticiously in one of their temples on the net as well as stranscripts - see http://www.lds-temple.org Alienburrito 00:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

After you make an edit it is best to sign your post by typing four tildes "~". First, the King Follet discourse was given by Joseph Smith at a funeral. It focuses on the nature of God and the purpose of creation. The topic of this article is THEOSIS; not the nature of God.
What you are seeking to do is sensationalize LDS beliefs. Your edits say nothing that the article did not already say; except you seek to go off topic and sensationalize what are LDS beliefs. LDS believe the purpose of creation is not the desire of God to have a flock of sycophants that spend eternity singing his praises. In LDS theology, it is believed that God created his children for a purpose; often stated as "to bring to pass the eternal life and immortality of man". Through Jesus Christ we become co-inheritors. LDS believe that means we inherit what Jesus inherits.
To sensationalize beliefs is POV and not acceptable. It would be similar to saying that orthodox Christians are cannibals that eat the flesh and drink the blood of their God every week. That is an accurate statement, but its tone and perspective are meant to demean, deride, and belittle the sacred. I caution you that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and it is not a place to grind an axe. --Storm Rider (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly what is it that you want to say that is not already said in the this article. --Storm Rider (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I am seaking to explain exactly what the lds beleive about the idea of exaltation. I'm sorry you chose to spin that as sensationalism. And frankly, if you read the king follet sermon, you'll realize that the LDS view of the nature of God is essential to their concept of exaltation. And both are essential to why they dance around the issue to outsiders. Stormrider, your comments are blatalty missrepresenting my comments, and are unnacceptable.Alienburrito 00:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito
And I don't think i've said anything that adds much to the actuall article, other than perhaps clarify why the LDS tend to say thinjgs like "the concept is not clearly defined" Alienburrito 00:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito
Thank you for your response. Please do not confuse the issue; you were spinning and attempting to sensationalize the concept of theosis in the LDS religion. The King Follet discourse is not part of the canon of the LDS church or part of its doctrine; however, it would be appropriate to say that some of its principles are part of LDS theology.
The nature of God has nothing to do with the LDS concept of exaltation. The church teaches that God the Father allows his children to progress eternally. We can progress first and only through Jesus Christ. What Jesus Christ offers all of his followers is to be co-inheritors. LDS describe that concept as becoming gods; you might want to do a search in the Bible for the number of times humanity is called sons of God or simply gods. At no time does LDS theology or certainly its doctrine teach that we will become equal to God. He is our God and will be our God for all eternity; the concept of exaltation is complete union with Him and to live eternally in His presence.
I would agree; your addition added nothing to the article and that is the reason I reject it. Everything you stated is already stated; however, you chose to use sensational language very common on rather low-quality anti-Mormon websites. To go further than what LDS scripture says is to go further than the church states as doctrine. Let's just stick with doctrine and not supposition or areas where there has not been perfect clarity. My edits are doctrinal. --Storm Rider (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


Stormrider - please do not confuse the issue and try and accuse me of spinning and sensationalization. The King Follet discourse may not be part of LDS Scripture, but it's very clearly part of the teachings of the founder. Your commets are very typical of responses from mormon apologists who try and misrepresent the teachings of the Church. Joseph Smith was very clear about his teachings - that God was once a man, who became god, and that humans can also become Gods. I guess you can say that teachings of the founder of the LDS church aren't part of what the church refers to as the Standard Works - the Bible, The Book of Mormon, etc, but how can they not be authoritative? The Church regularly promotes themselves as not needing to rely soley on scripture and the often confusing nature of scripture, because they have a prophet who speaks for God, and can reveal clearifications, elaborations, and even new doctrine when neccesary. For example, Apostle Dalin Oaks said in the February 1995 church Magazine Ensign:

What makes us different from most other Christians in the way we read and use the Bible and other scriptures is our belief in continuing revelation. For us, the scriptures are not the ultimate source of knowledge, but what precedes the ultimate source. The ultimate knowledge comes by revelation. With Moroni we affirm that he who denieth revelation “knoweth not the gospel of Christ” (Morm. 9:8).

The word of the Lord in the scriptures is like a lamp to guide our feet (see Ps. 119:105), and revelation is like a mighty force that increases the lamp’s illumination manyfold. We encourage everyone to make careful study of the scriptures and of the prophetic teachings concerning them and to prayerfully seek personal revelation to know their meaning for themselves.[1]

It's very clear that the LDS Church teaches that they rely on more than just scripture for their teachings, that they beleive that they have prophets that recieve revelations from God, and those teachings are also accepted even if they aren't part of the Scriptures. Frankly, Stormrider, your edits and comments are standard LDS spin for outsiders, dancing around the true teachings of the church to avoid turning off ousiders. My edits elaborating on the teachings of Joseph Smith and other LDS Prophets will continue. Alienburrito 21:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Alienburrito

Well, as long as at least some of the quote from the King Follet sermon stays there, I won't mess with it without discussing it. Thanks for leaving at least some of it there, stormrider. I do wonder though, if the orthodox commenter over on the theosis discussion page isnt right, should we move the details of the LDS concept of exaltation here? but at least add a "see also" entry? I know i've discussed the LDS beliefs with people, only to have the concept of theosis pointed out, so i think it would be a good idea to at least point people to a page about it. Alienburrito 23:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

Not a very original response, but at least you can parrot. I would recommend when attempting to explain your position to not simply copy the words of another editor; it shows a remarkable lack of creativity at most.
The point you consistently miss is staying on the topic. You have been editing Theosis, but for some unknown reason you post your position on this page. If there is a disagreement on the Theosis article, post your comments to that page. TO have already been corrected on this once it makes me think you are not seeking to come to consensus for a positive editing experience.
Your entire edit has nothing to do with Theosis or Exaltation. You are addressing the nature of God. To address that issue you should look at Mormonism and Christianity, Criticism of Mormonism, Mormon cosmology, Anti-Mormonism, and Teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr.. Feel free to add it to these; however, you will find that it is already mentioned in all of them.
Also, you should review what Wikipedia is not. Long continuous quotes are not ideal. This is not a place for you to grind an axe, "preach" the truth, or enforce your POV. --Storm Rider (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


Wait - let me get this straight stormrider - I'm unorigional and paroting someone when I say they might have a good point? So if i end up saying that YOU have a legitimate point, will i be parroting you? Will I be unorigional? I've been posting some of my thouguhts here, and on you're page, because to be honest you and I have had a disagreement, and it seemed this page might be a good place to get some input from several people, not just you. I did'nt realize seeking the input of someone besides you would be a problem. The orthodox poster over on Theosis had a really good point - that the LDS view might not belong there. The LDS view should be discussed somewhere, perhaps here in Exaltation (LDS Church), with at least a "see also" link. I suggest at least linking the 2 topics if they're put into separate entries because I've had discussions before with LDS where the 2 concepts were linked. Alienburrito 00:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito


Stormrider - i've taken a few days off, and reread some of you're comments. I'm flabergasted at your continued dishonesty. It's very clear that the King Follet sermon teaches about the concept of exaltation. And remember, this sermon was from Joseph Smith Jr, the prophet who started the LDS church. Your insistance that it refers to the nature of God with no reference to the concept of exaltation is blatantly false, apparently deliberately so. If my edits were sensational, its because the teachings of the church are sensational. It's become very clear that your edits here are delibrate attempts to stir up trouble. Alienburrito 07:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

Taking a few days off and rereading the edits has not improved your understanding of Wikipedia policy. I caution you to assume that other editors always edit in good faith. Second, to accuse another's edits were attempts to "sitr up trouble" is a personal perspective; I would view your edits to have multiple problems. Primarily, you do not understand Wikipeida policy and confuse topics. Understand this, articles about Exaltation or Theosis are intended to be about that specific topic. It is not to talk about the Plan of Salvation, the nature of God according to LDS, or any other topic.
You continue to think that we primarily have a disagreement about beliefs; that is not correct. I would just take a guess and state that since I am actually a LDS of some years and you are not even a Christian and that religion in general has been a main hobby of mine for many years, there is not really a lot about the LDS faith that you can teach me (that is not to say I can not learn from you; I feel like I have to dance on egg shells trying not to offend). Also, please do not project upon the LDS theology an emphasis on doctrine that does not exist. This is a favorite instrument of anti-Mormon literature, which I have also read. It is a dishonest method to sensationalize LDS beliefs by taking beliefs out of context and parsing the statements of leaders.
You are correct however in stating that LDS have sensational beliefs, just as it is sensational to believe that there was once a man called Jesus that was and is the Son of God, who was born of virgin, lived a sinless life, was crucified, but rose on the third day and that through this atoning sacrifice we can all be forgiven of our sins and only through him can be saved. --Storm Rider (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

proposal for rewrite of article[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alienburrito/Exaltation_%28LDS_Church%29#Ordinances

comments please, and please help me fill in the small number of missing citations

Alienburrito 07:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

I think some distinction should be drawn between "going to" (for lack of a better word) the celestial kingdom and exaltation. The two are not synonymous. Only those in the "highest degree" of the 3 degrees within the celestial kingdom are those who are exalted. Thus, it appears that a person may be able to NOT receive some of the "saving ordinances" (eg: sealing to a spouse) and still go to the celestial kingdom, which kind of contradicts what's in your draft. Exaltation is a kind of bonus that is in addition to receiving the celestial kingdom, which is living in presence of God. It's above and beyond a basic reward of the celestial kingdom and the article should indicate this. This omission is not your fault as I see the original article doesn't really address it. –SESmith 07:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


SeSMITH - interesting - that's a twist on the topic I've never run across before. 2 twists actually. In all the years i've been reading up on this subject, I've never run across anything that indicates the lds beloeve you can get into the Celestial Kingdom without the temple marriage. One caveat on that though, I have a vague recall of reading that perhaps people from the lower kingdoms might be servents to those in the Celestial kingdom.

As far as equating the Celestial Kingdom with Exaltation, you do have a good point now that I think about it. I suppose once you get to the Celestial Kingdom, eternally progressing past that point is optional and totally up to the individual. I can't think of a reference in LDS literature though that makes the distinction. Then again, of course, most of their public material these days deliberately vague on points like this.

I'll do some digging, and I'd apreciate it if you would too, to find some references somewhere for this. Alienburrito 21:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

I guess the basic starting point for this concept would be Doctrine and Covenants 131:1-4, which indicates there are 3 degrees in the celestial kingdom, and in order to enter the highest an individual must enter a celestial marriage. Verse 4 suggests that others who are not celestially married can go to the other degrees of the celestial kingdom. This Sunday School lesson makes it clear that celestial marriage is necessary for exaltation, but it does not discuss the concept that other non-exalted can go to the celestial kingdom. For that distinction, see this lesson under "celestial", where it says "Those who inherit the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, who become gods, must also have been married for eternity in the temple. All who inherit the celestial kingdom will live with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ forever."
This source—the Gospel Principles manual—is a great source for finding basic doctrines that the LDS Church accepts. It covers most topics and has fairly good references to where the doctrine comes from in LDS scriptures. –SESmith 22:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The part about the non-exalted being servants of the exalted is probably "doctrinal folklore" that some LDS have believed and taught; I'm not positive where it would be found. I'll think about that and see if I can find anything. I'm fairly sure it's not accepted doctrine of the LDS church and is not found in LDS scripture anywhere. –SESmith 22:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The phrase in your intro: "and have their own worlds to rule as gods" is not supported by any doctrinal statements of the LDS Church or one of its presidents that I can find. I can find things that say exalted persons will be gods and they will have spirit children, but nothing about creating worlds, etc. Sound like another piece of "folk doctrine". Without a reliable citation, it should probably be removed. –SESmith 03:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you also please provide a reference for this phrase in the intro: "as becoming literally deities". The only place in the writings of Joseph Smith where deities was used, that I could find, was History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, vol. 3: p. li-liii where Joseph discussed the numerous deities of the ancient world. Also, you seem to enfer that we will become equal to God the Father; that is not an accruate respresentation of LDS doctrine or theology. LDS believe in the concept of eternal progression; that progression is the path for all righteousness. This progress is an eternal venture or path; it ends for none except those who committ the unpardonable sin. You may want to check out an article that does a good job of synthesizing LDS concept of progression and exaltation. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
That's true as well, and goes to the difference between saying someone becomes a "god" vs. saying they become a "deity". Smith said men could become "gods" but he never said they could become "deities". My intuitive sense is that there is a difference between the two, but I'm not sure what it is. It may be that "deities" are objects of workship whereas "gods" are not, but that doesn't sound quite right necessarily, since people can and do worship "gods". Any ideas on the difference, Storm Rider? –SESmith 06:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, the use of the phrase "literally deities" is problematic. Even if we say "deity = god" and grant that the usage of "deities" is OK here, what is the cite for Smith or anyone else saying the concept of exaltation is a literal event that takes place? Just saying it happens does not mean the person who said it even meant it to be interpreted literally. There's absolutely no point to including that adjective unless there is a good reason to do so. –SESmith 06:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is similar to yours; deity is the being that I/we worship. When I use worship in this context I am going beyond reverence and limiting the conversation to prayer. This is probably a glaring shortcoming in my analysis because LDS obviously reverence all three members of the Godhead. However, LDS do not ever confuse the roles of the three members; they are not interchangable. Again; there are exceptions in terminology here. The term Father can be applied to the Son; he was the creator and thus could rightfully be called Father and has been. However, just as Jesus himself maintained a distinctly separate identity (he prayed always to the Father and I am not aware of any instance when he prayed to himself) there is a oneness that is beyond our understanding.


AN ASIDE: This is an interesting subject for LDS because I think you would find some fascinating responses. I believe you will find that the church will teach that the Godhead is what we worship; Father, Son and Holy Ghost; each is worthy of worship. However, when I reflect on my own experience there is never any confusion about who I pray to; it is always the Father. I think that would be the response for the majority of LDS people. When you look at Christianity at large there is an interchangability between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. When you hear Protestant prayers they will often address both Father and Son, but in such a way as they are the same. I can readily see how they worship all at once. LDS reverence the Savior, religiously, but He is not the object of prayer. He is the conduit, the intermediary, through which we approach the Father; but He is not the Father for LDS.


Good points here stormrider, very acurate, but i'm not clear exactly what it means in this disscusion - unless you're trying to point out that the concept of the Trinity is confusing, or seems odd or incomprehensible or nonsensical to outsiders. Alienburrito 19:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito


Agreed on the "literally"; that terminology is not found among LDS theologians to my knowledge. I could be wrong, but I have no recollection of this in any of my reading of church history. I think it is POV and begins to enter the realm of the sensational that our critics are so enamored by. It recontextualizes LDS beliefs into something that becomes unrecognizable by LDS. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I do find references to "literal children of God" - the references are in one of my previous entries. true, its not "literaly become god" but "literal children of god" seems to go hand in hand with "litterally becoming god" to me. Thoughts? Alienburrito 19:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito



Well, I've always assumed the word Deity = the word God. First let's start with a couple key quotes from the King Follet discourse. "We have imagined that God was God from all eternity....God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did.....And you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves" - What other conclusion is there to draw from that, than literal progression to the same basic status as God The Father?

Next, let's go to Brigham Young: "What, is it possible that the Father of Heights, the Father of our spirits, could reduce himself and come forth like a man? Yes, he was once a man like you and I are and was once on an earth like this, passed through the ordeal you and I pass through. He had his father and his mother and he has been exalted through his faithfulness, and he is become Lord of all. He is the God pertaining to this earth. He is our Father. He begot our spirits in the spirit world. They have come forth and our earthly parents have organized tabernacles for our spirits and here we are today. That is the way we came."

The above is from "The Essential Brigham Young" - page 138 - Can't find this online at the moment. I don't see how you can make that mean anything other than our God was once mortal, and became God. We, being his children - with a promise from God's Prophets like Smith and Young that we can become Gods, how can it mean anything other than we eventually will be Gods of our own words, or at least all of us have that potential, even though only some of us do reach that level?>\

Then let's go to the current Prophet of the LDS Church, Gordon B. Hinckley, in Don’t Drop the Ball, Ensign, Nov 1994, he said "On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood." This is pretty blunt. To be honest, what's problematic here stormrider is YOUR refusal to admit to this publically. I know President Hinckley has said publically on Larry King and in other interviews he does't really know what the whole "as God is, man may become" thing means, but at the same time he comes right out and says what it means in church publications. That the whole of the gospel is geared toward our progression to Godhood.

Again stormrider, what the problem here is not my misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy, but your doing the Church's PR work for them here. Publically the church says one thing, that "they're not clear what it means" but amongst themselves the church leaders say it means "that men may become Gods". Wikipedia policy IS very clear about PR material, stormrider. Your discussion here has been very clarly mimicing President Hinckley's, saying the Godhood thing is sensationalism in one place, then turning around and saying it IS church doctrine in another place. I'll back off on the word "literal" if you behave yourself stormrider. One warning should be enough.

Alienburrito 07:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito


I think I am going to back off on the word literal and the word deity for now. And perhaps somewhat on "ruling our own worlds". I'll be damed if i can find all my notes with sources for all the stuff stormrider likes to call sensational. Gonna touch up that draft in the next day or 2 and stick to the more obvious conclusions from the quote's i've used so far.
P.S. ANy of you think the following are relevent?:
Ensign Magazine, June 1993, “Seek Ye Diligently” " As literal children of God, we possess the inherent capability of becoming as he is."
Bible Dictionary: God (from the bible dictionary included in bibles printed by the lds church) "Although God created all things and is the ruler of the universe, being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent (through his Spirit), mankind has a special relationship to him that differentiates man from all other created things: man is literally God’s offspring, made in his image, whereas all other things are but the work of his hands" [User:Alienburrito|Alienburrito]] 08:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito
You seem to parrot the same thing over and over again. I wonder; do you ever stop and listen? Did you by change read the article is suggested/linked above? I assume not because you keep yammering on the same thing. It reminds of the monkies that close their eyes and ears (let's drop the mouth part because that is the one thing that has not been stopped). I am not sure if you are interested in dialogue so much as just shouting your opinion about what YOU say the church says.
Your silly warning on my talk page is laughable; remain objective about the teachings of a religion??? Let me repeat this in caps, please consider it yelling because you have yet to understand one thing I have said to you:
OUR DISAGREEMENT IS NOT SO MUCH DOCTRINE, BUT IN THE EMPHASIS OF DOCTRINE IN THE LDS CHURCH. YOU ARE NOT THE DEFINITIVE SOURCE FOR LDS DOCTRINE; NOR WILL YOU EVER BE. REPEATING AD NAUSEUM THE KING FOLLET DISCOURSE DOES NOT MAKE IT A PART OF THE CANON OF THE LDS CHURCH NOR DOES IT MAKE IT THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF THE GOSPEL.
HEAR ME ON THIS, THIS IS DOCTRINE, MAN WILL NEVER BE THE EQUAL OF GOD; BECOMING LIKE GOD DOES NOT EQUATE TO BEING GOD. GOD THE FATHER WILL ALWAYS BE OUR GOD. IF YOU HAD A GRASP OF THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL PROGRESSION YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND THIS; HOWEVER IT IS EVIDENT THAT YOU DO NOT. INSTEAD YOU WANT TO YAMMER ON ABOUT THINGS YOU HAVE ONLY THE BRIEFEST OF UNDESTANDING OR FAMILIARITY.
In addition, pleaes do not attempt to dictate to other editors what is acceptable and what is not. On Wikipedia we strive to work by editorial consensus; please try to grasp the meaning of concensus. It does not mean what Mr. AlienBurrito wants he gets. My patience is running a bit thin with your lack of undestanding and your resistence to any degree of dialogue in this area. You have these glimmers of possibility, but then you squelch it with the type of drivel you left on my talk page. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, like Storm Rider I don't really understand what you're overall driving at Alienburrito with your last edits, unless it's to pursue some sort of agenda to make things sound more sensational. Please enlighten us. The reason for my confusion is this: you take statements of LDS leaders and read things into them that aren't there—you're interpreting what they say using your own background and knowledge—which is fine in your personal everyday life or religious life—but a neutral WP editor would strive to summarise and report the doctrine or teachings of Mormonism without embellishment, speculation, or editorial comment. Certainly a neutral editor would not assume bad faith on the part of LDS leaders, as you appear to do with Hinckley.

Quite simply, unless we can find a decent citation that says men become 'deities' (not 'gods') or that exalted beings create and rule other worlds, we don't assume that that's what the doctrine or teachings mean, even if we personally suspect that they do mean that. We find quotes that say men can become gods—great!—that's what we put in the article. All your quotes above have shown is that (1) men can become gods and (2) God the Father was once a man and became God. We can put that in the article. Everything else you say about Hinckley being duplicitous and "how can it mean anything other than we eventually will be Gods of our own words"—this is all speculation and interpretation. WP is all about an accurate reporting of sources, not speculating on what they might mean.

I'll go along with you on the word "deities" - God and Deity always ment the same to me, but your posts here do tell me that it could cause some confusion, so its probably not the best word. As far as 'ruling worlds' go - I know there's references - I really need to spend more time trying to find a good reference for it. I HAVE tried to find something that would be percieved ad reliable, but its been a pain in the ass. I COULD cite Gerald and Sandra Tanner's website, but that's not the best source to use for citations regardless of how good their material is. They might be good pointers to sources, but not a good primary source. Of course, that's part of the reason I mentioned the draft here - I was hoping someone would know a good online citation for it - and would post it here. Of course, my draft still is a draft, and is only on my own talk page. I think im gonna yank the word deity and 'ruling our own worlds' when i get around to updating the draft - till I can find some good solid references.Alienburrito 19:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito


I know you don't want a lecture, but I think Storm Rider has been trying to promote what he genuinely feels is a NPOV, and I think you may be attributing bad faith to him, which is a WP no-no. He will be the first to admit that he and I certainly haven't agreed about every single issue on WP involving the LDS Church and Mormonism, but I think it's unfair to accuse him/her of "doing the church's PR work". From what I saw on this page, before he lost it there he was making constructive comments in working to a consensus. No single person's approach makes the best WP article, and that's why we need to work together to create neutral content, and I think that's his position too. I value his work and I find whether or not he personally 'publically acknowledges' an LDS doctrine on a WP talk page completely irrelevant to constructing a better article. His work with me on other pages is evidence that people with completely different personal opinions about Mormonism can produce quality NPOV articles about the things they disagree about. –SESmith 09:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Alien, the article that I linked to above was an attempt to provide additional information for you. You rely heavily on the King Follet discourse and you want to build all of LDS doctrine upon a funeral talk given by Joseph Smith that is a synthesis of four different writers' notes of what he said. Understand that I think the talk is important, but there are other important statements that also need to be reviewed to ensure that context is understood and beliefs are clarified. Also, you have an incomplete understanding of the concept of eternal progression, which is fundamental to understanding the LDS concept of the Plan of Salvation and the purpose of the hereafter.
I would also ask you to not focus on my comments and react so strongly to them. I did not edit your article on your sandbox, but I made comments here for your review and to begin further dialogue. Your response was to post an inappropriate warning on my talk page about NPOV (it does not apply because my edits were on a talk page); it was a petty to an invitation to talk and then you toldg me to be objective, which is exactly what you were not being. You have a particular POV and you ignore any evidence that conflicts with your agenda. The focus is not you or me; it is the topic. We both need to remove ego from this interaction. --Storm Rider (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


SEsmith - I'm striving at some honesty for once on LDS doctrine. I'll agree with you that perhaps "deity" isnt the right word, but the doctrine in the King Follet sermon has clearly been stated by prophets since Joseph Smith as indicated by some of the quotes from Brigham Young and Gordon Hinckley. And frankly, it's VERY clear that official church sources in recent years HAVE downplayed the issue., notably President Hinckley who has said he didnt know what "As God is, man may become" means in public interviews. Yet at the same time in the early 90s gave a conference talk where he clearly stated that the whole gospel was geared toward moving towards Godhood. And this is why I specifically pick on Hinckley. I'm working on a source for "ruling worlds" - I know it's there somewhere - finding an online source that will be acceptable will be difficult of course. I'll yank that from the draft when I revise it, till i can find a reliable online source.
Stormrider - You've accused me of yammering on about stuff I have only a very brief understanding of. I've been avoiding mentioning this deliberatly because for now I don't want this public, but it seems to be time to at least mention it. My family has been LDS for several generations, my grandfather was a General Authority, a rather high ranking one, for quite a number of years. I spend 30+ years in the church. I know very intimately the doctrines of which I speak. This is why I accuse you of dancing around the issue so often. Not knowing my history, you think its safe to say I have little understanding of what I'm saying, and why I say you're doing PR work for the church, because I have first hand knowledge of this from the inside. You do need to be carefull about assuming things about people whose history you really don't know. I'll be honest that I'd like to call it bias on your part, but considering the fact I've been basically anonymous here like most people, that's not really very fair. Of course, you HAVE assumed quite a bit about me for not knowing anything about my history. I guess that's the downside of anonymity on the net. Alienburrito 18:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito
Now this is the way to have a conversation and discussion. My position is not an assumption on anything other than your edits. Would you agree that you focus heavily on the King Follet discourse? Do you think it is significant that it was never added to LDS canon or do you think it matters? If the LDS doctrine has evolved what does it mean? How does one identify a change in doctrine versus a change in emphasis?
Your entries here on the talk page definatly make assumptions about me, not just on my edits. Alienburrito 21:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito
Hinckley actually made that statement you talked about above on Larry King live; however, it was in the following general conference that he stated he had a grasp of the teachings of the church and no one needed to be concerned.
I was sure it was Larry King - just dont have access to a tape of that particular show - and i think he said the same elsewhere - anyway...that's another story i guess. But Hinckley's 2 seemingly contradictory statments are a major concern. You'vve also apeared to have switched back and forth from saying you beleive that the church does teach that we become gods, to saying its not doctrinal. This is why you sound like a PR agent to me.Alienburrito 21:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito
Your personal genealogy is of little significance here on Wikipedia. I would pity all the children of general authorities; I would not want to trade places with them for all the tea in China. What matters most in this venue is knowledge, writing ability, and a desire to understand that there are different perspectives. Neutrality is not an absence of a perspective, but an attempt to fairly describe the topic. On this topic it is to fairly describe what the LDS church teaches and believes about Exaltation. It is not what critics say the LDS church believes about Exaltation; that would be a different article or a subsection of this one.
Agreed stormrider, its a hassle being related to a general authority. The expecations are frankly a pain in the ass. As far as doctrine goes, perhaps I haven't cited enough sources from variuous general authortiies over the years. I'll do more of that in then ext week or 2 - give me some time to take care of some personal matters. I was hoping the references i've cited so far would have made it clear that numerous Church leaders over the years have most definatly taught that exaltation means we become Gods. If my citations havent made that very clear, I will add more to support that. But apparently you are LDS - being LDS - you should know what the church teaches, as I do. I know the church likes to present itself in the best possible light, a light that will attract the least controversy or critisism, but frankly, many of the issues its critics like to raise are very accurate, just that they're issues the church likes to downplay. Again, this is why you sound like you're doing church PR - you downplay the same issues offical church publications do. Like this whole flap we've had over Exaltation, like the Adam-God theory, etc. I know Brigham Young taught that, but its not church doctrine, at least not today. Perhaps in Brigham's day it would have qualified. I don't guess the church has downplayed this one as much as they have ignored it, at least publically. I must say that this particular teaching is very confusing even for an insider - One prophet teaches Adam was God, later prophets have taught Adam was just like other children of God, although he was blessed to have been the first child of God on earth. Alienburrito 21:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

It is also not a place to tell the world what Mormons really believe; that would be a various websites like that venerable site of neutrality www.exmormon.netor my good friend John Ankerbert.

The LDS church does not have a creed or a book of doctrine outside of the scriptures. The church has taught that when prophets and general authorities speak by inspiration in General Conference it is just good as scripture; of course that caveat of being inspired is a big one. We want absolutes in this world, but very few exist. Men are called of God, but they are still just men trying to serve God. I am not familiar with any prophet that has ever lived that was anything other than just a mortal man.
And here is the problem we get into. The general authorities will call themselves living scripture (i'll have to come back to ya with a cite to the conference talk on this), on the same level with writen scripture (the standard works), yet it seems that the current set of "livng scripture", the current set of general authorities, say different things than earlier "living scripture", the Adam-God idea being a great example. This makes LDS teaching a moving doctrine, very difficult to pin down. Unfortuantly, this makes it very difficult for ANYONE, you, or me or anyone else, to say what Church Doctrine actually is. 100 years ago it was one thing - lots of emphasis on exaltation being progression to Godhood - today exaltation is not nearly emphasized at much. So can either youor I actually say what church doctrine is? other than to say what church doctrine is at a specific point in time? That's a tough one even for me. I'll admit I've focused on what church doctrine was in the early days of the church, even though some of those ideas have been toned down a LOT over the years. Of course modern General Authorities like Hinckley HAVE made it clear that elements of the early doctrine of exaltation are still part of the church today. What od you think about this, stormrider: would you be willing to have information in the article that says that some church doctrines have changed since the 1830s? Alienburritoalienburrito
As you study the history of the church not all things said by a general authority have been accepted as doctrine; the Adam-God theory being a major one that was declared false. In addition general authorities have disagreed on doctrine or I should say they have had a different emphasis such as was demonstrated in the conflict between Young and Pratt in the article I cited. There are more examples, but this was significant.
Alien, there things the church teaches and emphasizes daily. There is theology that it teaches, but does not really expound upon. Some individuals have postulated things that have entered into the LDS culture, but they are not doctrinal. The church does teach that we can be co-heirs with Jesus Christ or that through Christ we may grow to become like God just as a child grows to become like their parents; however, this is viewed as a process and not an event. This has gone on for too long, but I enjoy talking about these things in the hopes that it results in a better article. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I find it very difficult to parse conversations and answer within the edits of other editors; it is a personal thing. It makes it difficult for future readers to track conversations. Chronology is different. I know a lot of editors who do the same thing, but I will always answer at the bottom of the page or section.
Just to make it clear my assumptions about you as a person are directly corrolated to your edits; that is all I have to work with.
The intention of my edits is reflect that which I believe is doctrine, theology and something else. The church does teach that we will become co-heirs with Christ, that we become gods. It does not teach that we will be the equivalent of God; that is an impossibility and is beyond the teachings of the church. This one is simple; if eternal progression is a true principal, then there are realms or sphere in which God is expanding, growing, progressing; therefore, he may allow us to walk in a path where he once walked, but he will always be walking on paths unknown to us. Does this make sense to you? Do you understand how saying we become God is not an accurate statement?
Suffice it to say I do not nor was I ever employed by the LDS church. Also, I have never worked in public relations for any company; it is beyond me. My skills are with numbers, investments, and contracts. I have been a life-long student of religion. I tire easily and quickly of the statements made by what is commonly known as anti-Mormon literature. I generally find it dishonest. It is a personal weakness, but when I sense a new editor has just come from reading an anti-Mormon website or heard his preacher talk about those terrible Mormons, my eyes roll back in my head. Their motivations are wrong for Wikipedia and are ideal for beginning their own website to declare the false religion of the Mormons. My impatience could be better expressed, but it really is laughable to me. I have encountered it too often in my life to continue to spoonfeed those types of people in the context of editing Wikipedia.
Sesmith and I both have indicated that the LDS church teaches that we become gods, but not God. This was a rather recent conversation. Your emphasis is off, IMHO, and is more sensationalized than true doctrine. Where does that come from?
I actually reject this issue of living scripture found in the words of the general authorites. The qualifier of "inspired" is a qualifier that applies to each individual who is lead by the Holy Spirit. General authorities do not have a corner on the market in this regard. Personally, I do not reverence a general authority because of his position; though I respect the mantle, the man puts his trousers on just like I do every morning. I have always felt that first and foremost I will follow the inspriation of the Holy Spirit. As long as someone is inspired by the that Spirit of Truth, I will listen. The pass card for a general authority only goes so far and, for me, it is not scripture until it is added to canon. It is simply far too easy for someone to say, "Oh, that was just his opinion and the church does not really teach that." This is an area where I suspect you will see become progressively more clarifed with time.
Again, I am uncomfortable saying that doctrine has changed; I will say that I see that an emphasis has changed over time. From 1910 until about 1970 the emphasis of the church was the Word of Wisdom; one could not be a Christian if one smoked or drank. I have taught classes before when Mormons thought breaking the Word of Wisdom was on a par or worse than breaking the law of Chastity. This has changed and is no longer the emphasis of the Church. We do teach today that we will be co-heirs with Jesus Christ, but we don't really expand upon greatly upon that. Though we may be his spirit children, he is our God and he will always be our God. How about you propose some changes and we see how it goes from there? --Storm Rider (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll go along with a change in emphasis being the major thing. I can only think of specifically the Adam God thing being the only one that has really actually changed. As far as exaltation goes, there's very few official statements these days about it, the general authorities seem to have toned down their words on the subject, although it appears to still be there. The meaning of the doctrine definately is much less clear from modern propehts and apostles than it was in the days of Smith and Young. Of course, you know I would say the meaning is very clear still, but current leaders definatly are much more vague for the most part.
I must admit I need a break from this discussion for a couple reasons. I sort of regret bringing it up when I did. Myh timing was bad more than anything. I had a flight home to Pensylvania to see my uncle who i;m tight with, when I started this. He died the morning of my flight, which I didn;t know till I got to PA. ANyway - i'll admit that's part of the reason i've been more agressive than I normally am. I still stand by most of what I said, but i do apologize for being so aggressive.
I plan on pondering this article the next week or so, and updating the draft. At the moment I AM planning on removing the word 'deity' - SESmith's entries has made it clear the term can be confusing. I'm still not sure what I want to do about saying exaltation means 'literally' becomming a god. There are entries in the LDS Bible Dictionary that say we are the 'literal offspring of God' - so to me that means moving to godhood is literal too. Of course, like we've discussed, the emphasis from the leaders definatly has changed, and the exact meaning of statements from modern prophets aren't always clear by themselves. So let me ponder the right verbage, and we'll talk. Mind you, I do intend on making it clear Joseph Smith and others taught this. And I know there are statments from some general authorities about us having our own worlds - I just need to find some reliable sources for them, preferably online rather than in out of print editions of LDS books. If I can't I'll definatey back off on that.
I want to mention some specific quotes on some of this stuff somewhere. It's clear that you and others aren't fond of large quotes in the text of articles. But some of the source i've quote from are so big I think it would be apropriate to point out the specific paragraph i'm using from some of the sermons in the Journal of Discourses, or the priesthood manuals, or conference talks. Are the footnotes the apropriate place for that?

Alienburrito 22:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

Whoa, leave for a little while and you lose all track of who's saying what. I agree that we should resolve to not interject comments within others' comments to avoid confusion. For much of the dialogue above, I don't know if its Storm Rider or Alienburrito writing!

I'm encouraged by your resolve to search for sources Alienburrito. I'll be anxious to see what you come up with for "ruling other worlds", because I certainly have never seen anything of a reliable nature regarding this. Usually it's written by people who learn about the "men become gods" concept and then immediately jump to the conclusion of "WOW--Mormons believe you will be a god and create your own worlds with purple dinosaurs and crap!". I don't think concepts like that are in any way part of the doctrine or teachings of the LDS Church. –SESmith 22:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, "ruling their own worlds" does appear to be doctrine - but finding the right way to source the material is where I'm at at the moment - I'll get back in touch with ya later on that. Alienburrito 01:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)alienburrito
I like the way you are talking; it is much easier to add edits attributed to an individual without making a claim they are the church's official doctrine. You will achieve your objectives and yet all for edits that define doctrine if there really is a difference.
The long quotes thing is a matter of style. You can make references to books by author and page number. If you need help with the format; just ask. I always just look at other references in the article and copy the format. Wikipedia allows for a couple different formats, but we try to use one style only in each article. By copying others already in the article you increase the probability of no creating work for other editors who are sticklers about format.
We are sorry to hear about the loss of your uncle. Though the loss of loved ones is a natural event of life, it does not make it easier to be separated from them. I can understand how that stress affected your interaction. I also have to laugh; of the vast majority of the editors on LDS articles I am probably the most prickly (no need to shorten the word Alien, I could see your mind moving in that direction already). As I mentioned above, I really am an impatient sort; when I sense a new editor moving in an editorial style that I have seen countless times in the past, I can react quickly and without much subtlety. Suffice it to say I am just turning into a crotchety old man. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
hey stormrider - i;m getting to be a crotchety old man too - so we seem to be that old deadly pair of the irresistable cannonball hitting the immovable post (grin). Anyway - I do have some sources I want to add to the draft to back up some of the points we've butted heads on. As far as wether some of this stuff is doctrine - We'll nitpick more on that later I guess when I get some more of the details and and backing for some of these sources, we can revisit it - perhaps we can stick with saying something along the line of saying "it's not clear that certain details of this are doctrine, or are empahasised currently, but some previous church authorities said this:" then insert a reference to what you might call sensational. By the way, speaking of sensational, at least in this issue, The Godmakers Cartoon is my standard for sensational. I've made a point of trying not to spin the material like Ed Decker has. He's definatly sensational, but (mostly) accuraate. He DOES mention the Adam-God idea, which I know the church has definately rejected, but he seems to stick to doctrine otherwise, even if he spins it really hard. Alienburrito 01:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

That is both the danger and the strength of "spin"; a kernal of truth is there, but the context has changed. Another one is "Mormons believe that Satan is the brother of Jesus"; it is an accurate statement of LDS belief, but LDS don't use that language. More importantly, there is no reason given for the belief; the scriptural support for it.

I think we talked about it before, but it is an adept comparison. We do not talk about Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, or any other orthodox group that believes the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Jesus as being cannibals, peoples who drink the blood of their God on a weekly basis or chew on his flesh. Anyone who reads the Old Testament finds that the prophets of old were not a warm, fuzzy group of benevelent men of God. Incest, murder, adultery, etc.: these were the qualities of the covenant people of the God of Israel. Though I disagree from a doctrinal position, I respect deeply the sacrament of the Eucharist; its holiness, its opportunity to be in union with their God. Though we can find quotes to support the blunt statements of cannibalism, it should be first presented in the way the orthodox see it and then followed by a critics point of view.

As an aside, even the Tanner's feel Decker is not a reliable source for criticism of Mormonism. He is not someone I would use much for research. Yes, I suspect you will find references and I will no problem including them. The tough part will be stating the doctrine of the church. Cheers. Storm Rider (talk)

Funny you should mention Transubstantiation. I was pondering mentioning that. Many protestants often DO give that, and "literal, though unbloody sacrifice of Christ" in the Mass as one of the reasons for separation with the Catholic church, that the belief in literally eating the flesh of Christ and literally repeating the sacrifice of Christ, even though it is only a belief, is an affront to God's law, and to the sufficency of Christ's one time sacrifice.
Now, as far as doctrine goes, check the last revision of my draft. That's straight out of "Gospel Principles", the book they use for investigators and juvenile classes. It's pretty clear that it's official church policy to teach that exaltation will allow us to have spirit children in the Celestial Kingdom who will ahve the same relationship we have with our own Heavenly Father. That's much more...what;s the right word? Polite? Politically Correct? Less Blunt? than some of the quotes I want to back up more firmly. The meaning is still clear though. I honestly don't see how you can construe that to be anything but official doctrine. I'm debating at the moment whether I want to go on and be more blunt or not. Alienburrito 11:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)alienburrito


Mind you, as far as Transubstantiation, of course the catholics are also much more straightforward about that belief, even though outsiders critisize it, than the LDS usually are about their beliefs about exaltation. And frankly, there have been occasions where I've talked about it with catholics, and i'm kind of blunt, and point out the common outsider's perception of cannibalism, but of course the fact that the catholic church is open and upfront about the belief generally helps the conversation go very well, much better than the conversation you and I have had. I've gotten responses from then ranging from "a lot of us dont take it seriously" to "faith is a special gift from God, and if he doesnt give it to you, it wont ever make sense to you", but I cant say I've ever really been accused of being an anti-papist or anything. The one big problem I have with how the LDS church aproaches the issue of exaltation is they seem to not be very upfront about it, at least in public. I prefer a very straightforeward aproach to things generally.
To get back to an old question of yours - The reason I keep mentioning King Follet is this simple reason: It's by Joseph Smith, the guy who started the whole LDS thing. It's also where he first introduced the idea. True it talks about the nature of God and his progression, but it also tells us that we "have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves--to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done". It seems to be the appropriate place to at least start talking about exaltation based on that. There's no reason to assume any questionable intention, any more than there would be to assume bad intention for starting a discussion of Creation with Genesis 1. It's just where the whole story starts. Perhaps there's other places to go for elaboration, but King Follet and Genesis 1 are the starting points for those 2 discussions. Alienburrito 03:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)alienburrito
Hello Alien, sorry I haven't responded sooner to your comments. Fundamental to your position is the assumption that everything that is said by a prophet must be the word of God. The Catholic church struggled with this issue of when is the pope speaking as a pope for centuries and I don't think it got completely defined until the Vatican II. Although I personally may give more weight to statements by Joseph Smith, overwhelming and total weight is given to scripture, i.e. that which is found in the Standard Works (SW). If the statements have not been added to the SW, it may be part of theology, but it is not necessarily doctrine. Doctrine is what is found in scripture; the prophets an apostles' role is to clarify what scripture says and provide additional revelation and guidance in our day. I think it is only acceptable to quote doctrine of the LDS using the SW.
This idea of going out and quoting the statements of church leaders, usually taking it out of context, is one the prime strategies of anit-Mormon literature. I have a strong, negative reaction to the strategy, often times inappropriately so. I should be more patient and overlook when similar things are done, but that have nothing in common with the intent of anti-Mormons.
It is interesting the reasons that you have quoted by Catholics; could not the same responses be used by LDS? Additionally, I want to make it clear that the LDS church's doctrine is that we are the spirit children of Heavenly Father, that through Christ we can be co-inheritor's with Jesus. The church interprets that statement from Romans literally i.e. what Christ inherits, we may inherit. These statements are perfectly and totally comfortable for LDS. It is doctrine and it is scriptural. If it is not found it scripture, it is not doctrine.
Further, there are many things that have been said by the prophets, but much of it was incomplete; there are too many questions left unanswered. The King Follet discourse is not complete, it does not explain everything to which it alludes. I do not deny it, but I say it is not the doctrine of the LDS church. If it were doctrine it would have been added to the SW.
Alien, I would like to add some caveats to my comments; I may be more legalistic than other LDS. I would have to assume that there are LDS that think that everything said by any prophet is doctrine only because they spoke it. Though I find that position naieve, it is a valid position to take. It would not be appropriate to assume that I do not beleive in modern day revelation; quite the contrary, I believe firmly in revelation. When the prophet speaks, I listen. If he declares that a scripture has a specific interpretation, I will observe his interpretation and seek a confirmation by the Holy Spirit, which is encouraged of all LDS. I still am not sure that I am communicating very well, but I do hope this clarifies my view. LDS have a strong dislike being told what we believe; I think most people have a similar reaction. --Storm Rider (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


Mind you storm rider - i am not telling you what you beleive - I am posting statements from the LDS church and various church leaders about its official teaching. I must say i have doubts about your reason for stating otherwise. Alienburrito (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Alien, please do not feel I perceive anything you say or might say is offensive to be personally or in any way dictating what my beliefs are. I think that we both seek to improve articles on Wikipedia, but we have different ideas about how to do that. We have an opportunity to improve a cooperative work in the objective that both will be satisfied in the end. Achieving a cooperative working relationship demands that we both acknowledge the valid points of all others to more easily move forward.
As I have stated above, there is a different between Church doctrine and the statements of individual leaders, prophets, or even the beliefs of its members. You and I both could demonstrate some very unorthodox beliefs in the membership over the history of the Church, unorthodox teachings of individual leaders or even prophets. None of those things should be the focus of the article, but rather the actual doctrine of the LDS Church and the other groups found within Mormonism.
The article is about Mormonism as a whole, which I think includes all of the groups within the Latter Day Saint movement. I have no problem introducing the comments of individuals, but that should be a small part of the article or the article would become unbalanced. Does this make sense?--StormRider 01:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


To a certain exstent. One thing that idont get is - when we;re talking about statements made by the President of the Church (The Prophet) - how is that not doctrine of the church? Well, perhaps if a later president/prophet says something different, but i HAVE attempted to avoid that problem by find several sources for material when I can, J Smith, B Young, and also recent prophets like Benson ,McConkie, Monson, when I can, as well as find material on the church website that expresses the same idea. often material on the CHurch Website is a bit more vague than the actual prophets seem to be when they're speaking to church members. I'm not clear why that is. I have a few ideas but thats another storry altogether. Anyway - check out my profile - and the curent sandbox version of Exaltation. I suspecft you wont like it but, have a look anyway. honeslty my big worry at the moment is how to phrase the similarities between lds ordaninces and catholic sacrements. THey overlap a lot, baptism, confirmation, etc... and serve similar functions - for the lds entry in to the higher levels of the afterlife, and forthe catholic entrance into the one heaven they beleive in.02:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alienburrito (talkcontribs)


Stormrider - let me add something. I've been going over some of our heated debates here. Do you really think our disagreement is not about what the LDS church TEACHES, but what the Church EMPHASISES? If so - i must ask a question i asked yesterday. If we do not disagree about what the facts are, but only on how important they are, why do you not like my edits? You seemed to have removed the vast majority of them, rather than add info about how important the were, or how much the church emphasized a particular belief. I A fact is a fact, is not, no matter how important it is? This is what makes me think you might be more concerned about not having the facts made public, than my misunderstanding of them - Alienburrito (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

First-Person Plural (We) and Sexist Language[edit]

Article uses the first-person plural inappropriately--thus all readers are in LDS church and are male. For example, the section on ordinances states, "We are taught to become kings and queens in God's kingdom through performing the ordinances of exaltation such as the endowment. Celestial Marriage is also part of the requirements of being exalted. It means we are married for eternity with our wives."

There are significant non-LDS and non-male populations who may find such language offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnalsin (talkcontribs) 03:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that "We are married for eternity with our wives" necessarily means that each individual has multiple wives. Or were you referring to the "we" and "our" meaning that only LDS will be married for eternity? If that is the LDS belief, then it is irrelevant if it's offensive to those of other faiths. Just like the Jehovah Witnesses believing only 144,000 will be saved. Is that offensive to others? Does it matter in an encyclopedia? Useight (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


Useight has a great point. Many of the isses that have come up, that some ahve called sensational....are just facts.

Stormrider's point that we dont disagree on doctrine as we disagree on what the church emphasises, might be true. He mayu also be right that some of the points ive tried to make seem sensational - but when it boils down to it, regardless of theemphasis of the church, or regardless of how offfensive or sensational a doctrine is, The church DOES teach certain things. Stormrider's point about what the LDS refer to as the WOrd of WIsdom is a good point. In recent years they;ve empasized it more than they did in the early days of the church - but it was still ateaching of the church regardless of how important the leaders made it at any given time. I think the same applyes to some of the issues Stormrider and i have butted heads on - LDS teachings about the nature of God may seem sensational and offensive to outsiders, but the LDS prophets HAVE taught them, and as best as I can tell, still do. I've got references to Bruce McConkie making statments about the unusual nature of the LDS beleif about god that parallel J. Smith;'s teachings (smith being lds prophet #1, and McConkie being the prophet right before the current one). I would say that qualifies it enough to make it a fact, a doctrine, regardless of how much it is emphasized currently.Nother example - word of wisdom talks about takingit easy on meat except during winter, few follow that though because the church doesn't emphasis it - i'ld still say since its part of LDS Scripture its still a teaching of the church. Perhaps it might be wise to comment about the fact the church doesnt currently emphasis a specific aspect very much currently, while actually mentioning that particualr aspect. Stormrider? 03:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alienburrito (talkcontribs)

A suggestion for a rewrite[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alienburrito/Exaltation_%28LDS_Church%29

This is my attempt to make this article sound like its NOT from an official LDS church publication. There's an occasional turn of a phrase in there i'm not satisfied with, like comparing the ordaninces of the LDS church to the Catholic idea of the sacrements...

give me some suggestions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alienburrito (talkcontribs) 23:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=66f03ff73058b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____