Hmmm... would it be better for me to theorize that God is the God of all other gods (that may or may not eventually crop up) and also man?
Since we are all made in His image, we are still technically part of Him such that even if someone does become a god in his own right, he will still be considered a part of God, just like Jesus is.

I'll step back at this point, as that's against what's in the bible, and I think only Heath would be able answer how closely that is to his beliefs.

Rogue:  The Orson Pratt statement may be accurate.  The scriptural reference just says "by the power of the Holy Ghost," but it is true that we believe Jesus was half from God the Father and half from Mary.

To answer the questions, it is actually quite simple:

(1)  The family unit is paramount, including the bond between husband and wife;
(2)  We are the spirit children of God the Father and his spouse, who are both exalted beings;
(3)  In order to get to that state, they had to live and be born on a world somewhere and partake of the same ordinances, testing process, etc. that we do;
(4)  They proved themselves worthy and were exalted to perfection;
(5)  They begat spirit children and created worlds for those children to go through the same process;
(6)  This world is one of those infinite number of worlds
(7)  Jesus is our elder spirit brother and is ordained the King of Kings of this world;
(8)  He and God the Father (whom we worship) are one in purpose and heart, but they are not one being.
(9)  He was born half of God and half of Mary in order to fulfill the very specific mission of the Atonement (to atone for the sins of mankind) and show us the example.
(10) He lived a perfect life and became the first person on this earth to receive exaltation.
(11)  We have the chance to follow the same type of path and become perfected in body, spirit and mind, and will be rewarded according to our faith, repentance and the use of the free agency we have been granted.
(12)  This is an eternal process, so technically there are an infinite number of "exalted beings" (what you might term "gods"), but we only worship God the Father since he gave life to us.

When you think about it, how far could man progress in a million years?  Look how far technology has brought us in just the last century.  It is not inconceivable to think that mankind is still in its infancy in the terms of its potential.

^_^ I like the way you explain things. Very clear. I like your explanation too. It is more or less what I had in mind personally.

I think that man's goal should be to perfect himself spiritually as well as help others achieve that goal. And the more people we have that do that, the closer this world will be to becoming a paradise. Literally, heaven on earth.

LDS isn't so bad. ^_^ It's great to know a little bit more about your religion. Thanks.

I'll be reading this thread once in a while to see how things work in your side of the spiritual world. ^_^

Thanks.  It's really a simple idea, and it's all based around the family unit, creation of personal relationships, and progression to a more perfect state.

FYI, everyone knows the Osmonds are LDS *sigh*, but did you know the following people are LDS?

Glen Larson (the creator of Battlestar Galactica, which incorporates a lot of LDS beliefs into it, such as the Council of 12, etc.) (I have a friend who used to go to church with him in the 70's)

Gladys Knight (but I don't think the Pips are...yet) (I have a friend that goes to church with her when she's in Las Vegas)

The Jets (the musical family that had number one hits in the late 80's) (I was never a fan, but my friend played basketball with the older brothers; they're a very nice Polynesian-like family; I met them once in Las Vegas.)

Some people have said that comedian Steve Martin converted, but I think that's just rumor, even though he seems to have really cleaned up his act.

Tracy Hickman (creator of Dragonlance and one of the original TSR teammembers developing early D&D--the Oasis of the White Palm series of adventures was one of my favorites)(I've met him a few times, and he ran a D&D competition at BYU when I went there in the 80's; great guy)

Steve Young-quarterback for the 49'ers.  (He's just an all around nice guy.  Met him twice in Utah and he owned a house near mine, so I'd sometimes see him in his pickup truck in the early 90's)

Movies:  Aaron Eckhart ("Paycheck" "Erin Brockovich"--main protagonist in "the Core"); Gordon Jump (WKRP in Cincinatti); Jerry Molen (Producer, Twister, Hook, Schindler's List, Jurassic Park, etc.); Neleh Dennis (a Survivor contestant who brought her Bible and Book of Mormon as her luxury item); Rick Schroeder (everyone remembers Silver Spoons, more recently things like NYPD Blue); Billy Barty (famous sufferer of dwarfism; I'm sure you've seen him in his over 200 movies Legend, Willow etc); Don Bluth (yes, the maker of all those cartoons like the Land Before Time--which when watched from LDS perspective sets out by analogy our plan of salvation); Matthew Modine (I'm sure you all know him); Kevin Foxe (married a Mormon and converted after the Blair Witch Project); Mark Deakums (Star Trek Voyager); Neil LaButte (Nurse Betty, In the Company of Men, etc.--director/screenwriter); John Wittaker (Family Affair--I only bring him up because I met him at church before).  There are more but this is a lot.

Sports: Dale Murphy is one of the most famous; Ty Detmer; Merlin Olson.  I don't really follow sports as much.

Authors: Orson Scott Card (met him on several occasions; great guy who's child suffers from CP, something I can identify with--you know him from Ender's Game, etc.)

Anyway, this is longer than I expected.  Sorry.

^_^ That's okay. It's interesting to know. Especially about Glen Larson and Tracy Hickman. I haven't watched Battlestar Galactica in it's entirety. Haven't seen any DVDs around.
What about the Council of 12? What has that got to do with LDS?

Just that the organization of leadership on the battleship was modeled after the organization of leadership in our church.  I honestly haven't watched the show since the 80's, so I can't remember all the details.  That was the only one that stuck out.

Read this post from United Order and found it to be interesting considering so much on these threads mixes science and religion (and since this study focused on my religion):

http://www.whyprophets.com/prophets/science.htm

In essence, some bullet points:

"Thus, it became obvious to me that Mormons hold not just a lead in scientific production, but hold a *very high* lead. So the significant question might be why this is so. I think looking at the responses of LDS scientists is a good way to find such an answer. In fact, such a study was conducted by a professor of Arizona State University, who was intrigued by the lopsided LDS scientific population. The results are rather conclusive. In brief, there are many reasons; Mormon leaders have always been pro-science, Mormon philosophy encompasses knowledge as a godly attribute, and the Mormon culture's acceptance of continuing revelation from God and openness to new insight."

"But do the Mormon scientists have a strong faith? That question was also answered in this interesting study. Of the LDS scientists polled a significant 83% considered themselves strong believers, while those of other Christian faiths were significantly less, the next highest being 44%."

"Also, of those questioned if their religion had an influence on their perusal to become a scientist, 88.4% of the LDS said "yes," while only 42% of the other Christians felt that their religion had any influence. And twice the percentage of the LDS attended worship services, and twice the percentage of LDS scientists had a favorable attitude toward their church compared to all others."

Some particular issues from the study:

"But do these scientists hold their "scientific" convictions? Absolutely. Of the 214 LDS scientists who participated in the recent Utah poll, "only three of them supported a young earth belief," (that the earth is only a few thousand years)."

"Compare this with nearly five times as many non-LDS scientists who believe in a young earth. And of the strong believers, only 10.6% of the LDS agreed with a non-evolutionary view of man's origin. Interestingly, some of the comments by LDS scientists who accepted organic evolution, demonstrated how small the conflict between science and religion really was. One LDS biologists said, "My religion is not biologically related." And another said, "There is no revelation specifically on how God created man; since religion does not explain it we are left to use what the evidence provides." Of the scientists who were "Strong Believers," only 15.5% of the LDS accepted the story of Noah and the flood literally. Twice as many non-LDS scientists ("Strong Believers") accepted the literal story. While most of the LDS believers felt that there was a literal flood, the details of the flood remained interpretive; only half as much of the non-LDS believers accepted this position, in spite of the conflict that such a rejection might hold scientifically."

"A clear 85 percent of the Mormon scientists believe in Jesus as the Christ, and that Joseph Smith was a prophet."

"Most of the Utah educated scientists, even the non-Mormons and Nominal Mormons, looked at the Church favorably as an institution for human welfare and support for the scientific community. None were antagonistic."


"Mormonism has distinctive doctrines which not only encourage mental development and service, but has produced a value system for family solidarity, healthy living, and a style which facilitates productive achievement."
This message was last edited by the player at 12:07, Sun 22 Aug 2004.

Considering only half of the Christian population considers itself to be strongly religious, this statistic is sort of misleading.

---

In terms of science, though, I'd rather poll Mormon archeologists working in Mexico, and take the words of their responses rather than numbers.

I'm guessing that there is more to this article?  It doesn't state the samples of non lds peoples that it used to get its stastics.

It's in line with the number of non-lds scientists.  Nothing really unusual about that statistic.

Don't quite follow you.  Why is restating the truth misleading? 1/2 is similar to 44%.


Agreed, but I can tell you from my own personal experience that the numbers probably wouldn't change.

(I wasn't really trying to argue anything with the article.  Just thought it was interesting considering that the leadership of our church primarily consists of doctors, lawyers, scientists, businessmen, etc. who were all very successful in their fields.)

Exactly.  Only about 45% of the U.S. considers itself 'devoutly Christian' - and as I recall Mormons got included in that number.

So the number says nothing surprising - I know a number of people who call themselves 'Christians' but believe Jesus rising from the dead is a myth, for example.  They follow it because they have faith in a higher power and want a moral system.

Of course, I know many more 'Christians' who well and truly aren't, they just say it to get things.



Maybe not, but I want to hear their rational.



Mormonism built incentive into its religion, it seems.  Incentive drives economies.

That statistic is probably a useless number in reality. I was talking to a friend one time, and the topic of religion came up, and when asked what religion he was, he says, "Well, my grandmother says I'm protestant."

Unless you're 10 years old, if your grandmother has to tell you what religion you are, you're not it.

I seriously doubt that.  The LDS following always beefs up the percentages because it has such a high retention and devotion rate among its members.  (There are many studies documenting this.) If it was included, it was probably so small comparatively that the LDS numbers wouldn't affect the overall numbers anyway.



Rationale for what?


Can you be more specific?

I;m not sure about retention, but that may just be personal oddities.

Maybe not.  Anyway.




Have any ancient sites described in the Book of Mormon been found in the Americas yet?  I haven't heard of any.



At the heart of it, economies are all about making stuff, fixing stuff, and moving stuff.  People, however, want to see results from their efforts - the mantra of capitalism is to hang the carrot in a place that can actually be reached.

Communism had no such driver.  You got what you got if you did your job well, poorly, or not at all.  While the last was hard to get away with, many jobs ended up getting done poorly.

Tithing seems to be the key.  Catholicism did very well when it required tithes, at least during Charlemagne's reign (even if Christianity wasn't being spread, they sure got their money...)

It's been many years since I looked at the sites in the Americas issue.  I remember such a site being discovered 10-15 years ago.  It is important to understand that the Book of Mormon recounts two passages to the Americas.  The first was the passage of the Mulekites (which as I recall was at or shortly after the Tower of Babel period).  This group lasted for awhile but eventually fell into unrighteousness.  The second group was Lehi's family who crossed in a boat after leaving Jerusalem.  (As I recall, it was 400 or 600 BC.)  Many unrighteous nations also came from that, and the entire groups fell off into unrighteousnes several centuries after Christ.

So there are thousands of years of culture built contrary to the ways of God with only a few hundred spotted years of righteousness.  I'm not sure exactly what you would be looking for in the "sites" you mention.

___

I'm still not sure about your incentive issue.  The incentive I see is the LDS belief that "the glory of God is intelligence," and learning, science, and the arts are built into our culture as very important, especially with our belief that we should try to follow God's example to become like him.  But since the heart of that is unselfishness, I'm having a difficult time following the economic incentive you mention, especially since most of them give up their wealth and properties (not to mention the 10% tithing).

Sorry, forgot the third group mentioned in the BoM.  The Jaredites, who migrated to America most probably from Central Asia.  It is also surmised that there may have been other migrations as well.

Where in the book of mormon are these groups mentioned?  Last year a couple girls introducing themselves as sister X and sister Y stopped by and we chatted a bit.  They gave me a copy of the book of mormon but I haven't read much of it.  When they said that they didn't know what the gospel was it was somewhat of a crediblity hit to them in my eyes.

Nevertheless, it'd be good to figure out actual archelogical, and anthropolgic (sp?) claims that are made in that book.

As far as the actual landing site of Lehi and his ship, they have found that. I am a big archaeology buff and this is one area I follow closely, hoping they will find what they are so Close to. There was a rumor that a Jaredite barge was found in lake Michigan, it was said to be a hoax from a non mormon dissenter later on. It has been a continous marvel though that the Aztec and Mayan temples in Chile are set up on the exact model and size as the holy temples in the holy land. Every time I see a documentary about that I jsut laugh and say, you'll figure it out someday.
 I was baptized LDS in 1997, and have fallen from the path somewhat. I say I can't believe in thier doctrines anymore, but yet I am the first to jump to thier defense. I also follow a Pagan path, and I blend the two rather harmoniously. People don't think that those two would blend, but they do. I guess I just have a very different viewpoint being Native American.

So then the higher ups of the LDS would agree you are following the right way?

Mormon was the one who collected and compiled the various plates from various peoples.  The book tells their stories, so where is it?  The whole book is about these groups.  (And there were portions of the plates that were never transferred.  The Book of Mormon is only part of the total compiled plates.)



I myself am often disappointed by the lack of people's knowledge of their own religion (in any religion).  Nevertheless, since religion is about faith and personal confirmation through the Holy Ghost, a perfect knowledge is not necessary for a perfect belief and really has no bearing on its truth.

If you're not happy with the messenger, find someone else to discuss your issues with.  If you have a broken arm and aren't happy with your doctor, do you just abandon medical attention or find a new doctor?



What claims are these?  The Book tells stories of the people much like the Bible does in order to set forth God's religion as it was practiced on the American continent.  It is not an archeological textbook and any geographical references are too vague to pinpoint any longitude or latitude on a map.  There are those who think they have found certain cities (such of the City of Nephi outside of Guatalahara City), but I would be shocked if they could ever prove such a thing.  Like finding a needle in a haystack.
This message was last edited by the player at 02:16, Tue 24 Aug 2004.

Absolutely not (hence he says he has fallen from the path).  The LDS religion believes that it is a straight and narrow path to eternal life.  It is not a path chosen by us.

And I actually have my doubts about the landing site of Lehi and his ship too.  However, the temple size issue I have heard discussed before, and it does seem a very interesting possible piece of evidence.

The evidence that I think is most telling is the DNA evidence of Native Americans.  It conclusively proves that they primarily came from Asia (no big surprise there).  But there have been found in the HLA gene codes trace evidence of pre-Columbian entry of peoples from the Middle East.  (In particular, there is a Y-chromosome haplotype that is often found among the Cohanim line of the Jews.)  Haplotype-X was found present in Native Americans.

[You may ask why this is important.  Geneticists have argued that the Native American population came solely from one or two migrations across Siberia.  This evidence shows that they are dead wrong.  There were multiple migrations, some of them quite probably by boat, and some from the geography of the Middle East.  While this obviously does not prove the Book of Mormon, it gives it a sense of scientific consistency.]
This message was last edited by the player at 02:31, Tue 24 Aug 2004.

I haven't examined the scientific accuracy, but some people have claimed the following:

Zarahemla:  Siebal (currently known as Ceibal)

City of Nephi: Kaminaljuyú (outside Guatemala City) (The five mound groupings at the site have been interpreted by some as representing five lineages as well as five subchiefdoms. If so, they parallel the Book of Mormon lineages of Nephi, Sam, Jacob, Joseph, and Zoram.) (There are also some parallels in the pictographs.  They record a date Nov 8, 147 BC.  They depict a scene which is consistent with King Noah and his son, Limhi, in the BoM.)

There may be more.  I'm not an archeologist myself.

Beyond the fact that genetic drift goes entirely from North to South, not Central America outwards, but the only reliable data I can find is that haplotypes M3, M45, and RPS4Y-T were the major ones present in Native American studies.  In addition, all four matriarchal lines (mitochondrial DNA studies) are Central Asiatic in origin - including Haplotype X.

Beyond that, so far as I know Haplotype X was only found in the Great Lakes and Midwest regions - where the Vikings are thought to have explored.  I'm told that there are different Haplotype X's though.

Of course, these lines can get snuffed out - but that would literally mean that, at one point or another, no sons got to pass on their Y-chromosome and no mothers got to pass on their mitochondria.  This is a pretty brutal squishing of genetic evidence, however.

The thing is polymorphic Alu insertions and microbial flora add to this evidence.

There is also the utter lack of any sort of linguistic evidence.