Posted: Jun 29, 2017 7:57 pm
by Cito di Pense
duvduv wrote:There must be some historical context that helps us understand how Joseph Smith and company combined traditional Christian ideas with those of pantheism and gnosticism, and paganism.


I think you're just trying to make sense of it yourself, but neither you nor I seem to know what you indicate by 'making sense' or how you would know it did once you got there. The alternative is that you don't believe it makes sense, and you want someone to argue the other side so you can win the argument.

duvduv wrote:Their doctrines explicitly state that the God of Genesis is not an omnipotent omniscient God of the entirety of creation, but in fact is a "Father in Heaven" who "became" this god, has a body of flesh and bones and was created by a prior God-Father in Heaven.


Maybe you think that anything invented by human beings has, in some way, to "make sense". You well know there are tons of scientific subjects in which people understand each other and make progress. By that I mean that they don't keep asking the same old questions over and over and over again.

duvduv wrote:I suppose this process goes back ad infinitum. And of course through "exaltation" every human being can achieve the same status of this creator God and be worshiped by inhabitants of other planets (without any proof of the existence of alien creatures beyond Kalob I guess). So essentially according to this doctrine there does not even exist a true God over all creation. In any event no one could argue that this set of dogmas is in any way actually relevant to Christianity, but perhaps moreso to Manichaeism etc.


There you go again, trying to make sense of it.

duvduv wrote:And of course Mormon apologists have a VERY difficult time refuting their practices that clearly emerge from those of the Freemasons, such as special dress, handshakes, etc. etc., given the fact that Joseph Smith, and I assume Brigham Young, were freemasons.


Refuting?

duvduv wrote:Upon pressing these issues of the godhead Mormons online have told me the above description is "CANONIZED DOCTRINE" which I guess means one does not need to reconcile it, describe it or explain it in relation to actual Christianity itself.


Again, how would you know that anything was reconciled? Surely you wouldn't just accept somebody's rationalization. I think it would be at the point where you decided to stop inquiring into nonsense for the sake of impressing yourself with the sheer scale and intensity of your tough-minded inquiry.

duvduv wrote:Hmmm....here we are over 3 months later, and no one is apparently interested in discussing this topic.


There's a clue up there waiting for you to sniff it out.