Is Carl Sagan "enjoying himself" as a "TK Smoothie"?

[_pogi]

I take all the best he had to teach and live by that. The rest, well, no one is always right.

A solid AMEN to that one!

[_Lemmie]

I take all the best he had to teach and live by that. The rest, well, no one is always right.

A solid AMEN to that one!

I wouldn't be too quick to follow our Dear Reverend as he meanders down his ironic path, you might find yourself sans TR. I'm pretty sure he is giving an opinion on cafeteria Mormonism, but i'll let Moksha sum it up:

They are talking about Cafeteria Mormons, at least include mayonnaise and ketchup in your parable.

[_pogi]

I wouldn't be too quick to follow our Dear Reverend as he meanders down his ironic path, you might find yourself sans TR. I'm pretty sure he is giving an opinion on cafeteria Mormonism, but i'll let Moksha sum it up:

They are talking about Cafeteria Mormons, at least include mayonnaise and ketchup in your parable.

I recognized his sarcasm. I just couldn't find anything to disagree with

I am not really offended by the "Cafeteria Mormon" accusation. I would argue that every single Mormon is one to some degree or another. I am yet to meet two Mormons that agree on every point of doctrine.

[_grindael]

I don't think there are any Mormons left who still believe (as taught by Jo) there are men living on the moon dressed like the Quakers from his time, but you never know.

There may also be some who believe as Hyrum Smith and Brigham Young taught that there are beings living on the Sun... but who knows and who really cares?

But we still have nothing on those current "apostles and prophets" who disagree on doctrines, or about the context of the quote by Joseph Smith that someone used above.

[_Lemmie]

I wouldn't be too quick to follow our Dear Reverend as he meanders down his ironic path, you might find yourself sans TR. I'm pretty sure he is giving an opinion on cafeteria Mormonism, but i'll let Moksha sum it up:

They are talking about Cafeteria Mormons, at least include mayonnaise and ketchup in your parable.

I recognized his sarcasm. I just couldn't find anything to disagree with

I am not really offended by the "Cafeteria Mormon" accusation. I would argue that every single Mormon is one to some degree or another. I am yet to meet two Mormons that agree on every point of doctrine.

That would agree with Huntsman's assessment of tithing being simply country club dues!

But seriously, you've mentioned not agreeing before, specifically with your bishop, but you were unable to come up with a single example so unfortunately, your repeated assessment of all Mormons believing differently sounds more like a mopologist's tactic to get around issues than an actual fact.

[_Kishkumen]

I’m not being sarcastic about my cafeteria Mormonism. Well, not entirely. I don't know why everyone is getting upset about pogi’s loosey-goosey definition of Mormonism. Seems fine to me. Churches are essentially social clubs. Once you reconcile yourself to that reality, you can comfortably choose whether you want to be in that kind of club or not. I choose not to be in the official LDS club, but that’s me.

[_Philo Sofee]

I’m not being sarcastic about my cafeteria Mormonism. Well, not entirely. I don't know why everyone is getting upset about pogi’s loosey-goosey definition of Mormonism. Seems fine to me. Churches are essentially social clubs. Once you reconcile yourself to that reality, you can comfortably choose whether you want to be in that kind of club or not. I choose not to be in the official LDS club, but that’s me.

The greatest quote I have heard about cafeterias is this one said to General Authorities on the Reddit Ex-Mormon group

"Sure, we'll stop being cafeteria Mormons, as soon as you stop being cafeteria historians."

It was written under one of Jeffrey Holland's pictures while he was speaking at a General Conference if I remember correctly.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

I know the TK Smoothie Thread is a couple of weeks old, but I just ran across this:

Spanish For 401st Ward Lesson About The TK Smoothie

We had a lively discussion in Sunday School today about the Kingdoms. Much of the discussion centered around what conditions one could expect in the different Kingdoms of Heaven. I got the distinct feeling that Brother Marks is shooting for the Telestial Kingdom, since it's rumored not to be that bad after all, and not require so much effort in this life.

In Mormonism, we have an expanded picture of life that extends before this mortal life and then on into the eternities. However, when you really dig into this, it turns out that we have very few details on what to expect after this life, and the details we do have come mostly from talks given almost 175 years ago. And to say that our expectations of 'Heaven,' have changed quite a bit since then is a gross understatement.

Despite all the speculation, one detail that we know for sure: unless you make it to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, there will be no eternal sex. Basically, you'd be turned into a Telestial/Terrestrial Kingdom Smoothie (TK Smoothie). I like to imagine these lesser-Kingdoms as the Barbie & Ken Kingdoms. Everyone walking around looking beautiful and perfect for eternity, but having a smooth under-carriage like Barbie or Ken.

Most of us would think, "I've got to make it into the Celestial Kingdom to keep my package intact," but, after some serious studying and pondering, I have some reservations about the Highest-of-Highs.

First and foremost is the elephant-in-the-room issue: Polygamy. All of the information we have about a genitalia-enabled afterlife comes from the early prophets. And they clearly tied entry into the highest degree in the Celestial Kingdom to the practice of polygamy. If you ever want to push a hot-button at Ward Temple Night, bring up this topic. So, to keep the privates intact, there's going to be lots of sharing going on. While the early leaders of the Church were really keen on the idea of multiple wives and herds of children, it's hard to find many supporters of this today in Relief Society. And as for the men that are for it, most really creep me out.

Secondly, the only purpose mentioned for keeping the family jewels is, 'eternal progression.' This means that men and their 1,000+ wives can't just find a quiet nook in Heaven to build their own Playboy mansion (any takers, Sisters?). There has to be kids involved, and we're not just talking a few, but billions. Billions, upon billions. Upon more billions. Eternal billions. More than McDonald's has served, and Madoff has stolen, billions. And who gets to tend all these billions of children? Maybe Angelina and Brad, but I digress...

The bottom line is, I'm not convinced that a TK Smoothie isn't the way to go. Even as such a loving Bishop, I hate visiting the Nursery. When little Tommy Milsap wet his pants while sitting on my lap last month, it took everything I had not to bless that child with the laying-on-of-hands. And I'm supposed to be excited about an eternity spent having endless children?

Can there be a classification for, 'Celestial Grandparents,' for those of us who are finished raising kids, want only one spouse, would prefer keeping what we currently have in the nether-area, but wouldn't mind just occasional visits to our children and grandchildren who decide that eternal child bearing/rearing is for them, and then coming back to the peace and quiet of our own, private Celestial-abode?

We're long-overdue for a refresher doctrine covering the afterlife. If 10% gets you polygamy and endless children, I bet a 15% option just to opt-out of these while being able to live in the Celestial Kingdom and visit loved ones would be really popular these days.

Am I alone in my concerns? I have to raise this one with The Brethren, for sure. Does anyone know if they have anonymous suggestion boxes?

Bishop Young

https://spanishfork401stward.blogspot.c ... othie.html

[_Meadowchik]

I’m not being sarcastic about my cafeteria Mormonism. Well, not entirely. I don't know why everyone is getting upset about pogi’s loosey-goosey definition of Mormonism. Seems fine to me. Churches are essentially social clubs. Once you reconcile yourself to that reality, you can comfortably choose whether you want to be in that kind of club or not. I choose not to be in the official LDS club, but that’s me.

Supposedly, for some, a casual valuation of church as a social club translates into telling your sibling, "when you are critical of the church institution, you're saying you hate me and my family."

I see this attitude frequently and it is frustrating. The subject likes to wear the casual facade but still gets overly defensive. This tells me that it is much more than a club, but an identity, and that the casual attitude is how they manage their own cognitive dissonance with the actual teachings.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

You mean Stephen Hawking? No, he was not really learned. He knew a lot of things, but he missed the forest for the trees when he decided that it was not necessary to posit a divine being in the formation of the universe.

Of course, now, in the spirit world, he realizes how wrong he was, but he can't un-write what he wrote.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=50488&start=21

This appears to be yet another classic example of the "TK Smoothie" mindset that plagues most Mopologists.

Mike, according to Mormon theology, Stephen Hawking is being taught the Gospel by resurrected beings and will have an opportunity to partake of the infinite atonement of Christ. Yet, you seem to feel that it's too late for Stephen because of what he wrote? Do you feel Stephen will be sporting an eternal TK Smoothie as punishment?

This mindset of revenge and glee about perceived enemies of the Mopologists receiving a TK Smoothie is beyond me. It shows an utter lack of understanding Mormon theology and reveals a deep character flaw of the Mopologist.