Is Assimilation good for the Mormon faith?

[Topper]

Will it lose its distinctiveness?

[Green Monstah]

I think it will be good for Mormons, but I can see the LDS being much more like the CoC in a hundred years than any of us would like to admit.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I think it will be good for Mormons, but I can see the LDS being much more like the CoC in a hundred years than any of us would like to admit.

We are already very highly similar to the CoC, but have yet to recognize it.

FWIW, I am very highly interested to know what Borg has to say about this topic. Is there a 'Summon Borg' bat-signal?

[pellegrino]

Acceptance would be good, but I think assimilation would make Mormonism bland, for in order to assimilate, we would have to lose the whole eternal progression doctrine.

[Topper]

Acceptance would be good, but I think assimilation would make Mormonism bland, for in order to assimilate, we would have to lose the whole eternal progression doctrine.

Isn't it already bland? People showing me this faith can't show me how it is actually any different than most others. The Topper thinks most of its distinctiveness appears to have died with Joseph Smith and maybe Brigham Young.

There are some philosophies which Mormons give lip service to that sound different, but the Topper doesn't see much difference between Mormons and Baptists, except in presentation.

[jay santos]

Acceptance would be good, but I think assimilation would make Mormonism bland, for in order to assimilate, we would have to lose the whole eternal progression doctrine.

We haven't already lost it?

[pellegrino]

We haven't already lost it?

Not entirely, no. In fact, it's celebrated by the Nauvoo pageant every summer.

[jay santos]

Not entirely, no. In fact, it's celebrated by the Nauvoo pageant every summer.

It was taken out of the Gospel Principles book. You don't hear it being discussed in General Conference anymore.

[pellegrino]

Isn't it already bland? People showing me this faith can't show me how it is actually any different than most others. The Topper thinks most of its distinctiveness appears to have died with Joseph Smith and maybe Brigham Young.

There are some philosophies which Mormons give lip service to that sound different, but the Topper doesn't see much difference between Mormons and Baptists, except in presentation.

correlation is what has made Mormonism bland.

[pellegrino]

It was taken out of the Gospel Principles book. You don't hear it being discussed in General Conference anymore.

which may have implications for future generations, but if you ask any Mormon about it they'll set you straight. I know, I've asked.

[Green Monstah]

We are already very highly similar to the CoC, but have yet to recognize it.

FWIW, I am very highly interested to know what Borg has to say about this topic. Is there a 'Summon Borg' bat-signal?

In ways you're correct. However, we (as an organization) still hold fast to belief in BOM as a historical text, temple endowments and ordinances, and polygamy (insofar as Section 132 is still a standard work).

But we're still a far cry from BOM as an afterthought and a name change to mainstream-sounding name, etc., etc.

[NorthwestUteFan]

which may have implications for future generations, but if you ask any Mormon about it they'll set you straight. I know, I've asked.

That makes the three following quotes somewhat hard to clarify:

According to the progression, we used to believe as Lorenzo Snow taught, "As man is God once was; As God is, man may become."

I think the general membership still hold fast to this principle. Do we no longer believe this? Apparently this doctrine, which seems to be fundamental to our belief system, was a complete mystery to GBH? Apparently the church is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, but can change if a living prophet overrides a dead prophet. Yet we still claim to believe the 6th article of faith and that the current church is based upon the ancient church, but perhaps the next prophet will overrule the current setup and the new paradigm will become permanent and 'eternal'?

More to the point, are we being 'steered' into a new faith paradigm under the 1st presidency's and QOT's kinder, gentler machine gun hand?

In ways you're correct. However, we (as an organization) still hold fast to belief in BOM as a historical text, temple endowments and ordinances, and polygamy (insofar as Section 132 is still a standard work).

But we're still a far cry from BOM as an afterthought and a name change to mainstream-sounding name, etc., etc.

The CoC deeply shares and reveres our history (and they are wonderful, loving, and accepting people), they just took a seperate direction. Abandoning the BOM as a literal historical document was big, as was ordaining women to the priesthood. Perhaps there are some lessons to take home from the CoC regarding a way to accept, apologize for, and move beyond past problems.

[All-American]

It was taken out of the Gospel Principles book. You don't hear it being discussed in General Conference anymore.

http://lds.org/manual/gospel-princip...become+gods%22

What are some blessings that will be given to those who are exalted?

. . .

2. They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23).

http://lds.org/manual/gospel-princip...gment?lang=eng

Those who inherit the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, who become gods, must also have been married for eternity in the temple (see D&C 131:1–4).

You've got a point on General Conferences, though:

http://lds.org/search?lang=eng&query...ce&sortBy=date

[jay santos]

http://lds.org/manual/gospel-princip...become+gods%22



http://lds.org/manual/gospel-princip...gment?lang=eng



You've got a point on General Conferences, though:

http://lds.org/search?lang=eng&query...ce&sortBy=date

Read Bob Millet's take on lower case g gods. It basically means nothing.

[All-American]

Read Bob Millet's take on lower case g gods. It basically means nothing.

Who is Bob Millet, and where may I find his teachings in the Gospel Principles manual?