| Author | Message | ||
     egk (egk) Intermediate Member Username: egk Post Number: 178 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 81.182.110.163 |
Joesdad, I believe I told you that I would contrast the earlier church’s view of the “deification” of Christians with that of the Mormons (as I understand it.) Here is a short version of it. Better short than never. To understand the primitive Church’s view, you first have to understand the primitive Church’s view of God. God is infinite, almighty, and in His essence, unknowable to finite humans. The “best” we could do, is to see traces of Him in nature, come to understand traces of Him through our reason, and experience small aspects of Him through other persons. God condescended to us and gave us the Scriptures, which revealed more of Himself, but the full revelation of Himself came through Jesus Christ, who is both God and man. He and he alone is the way to the Father, the fullest revelation of the Father’s nature, and the mediator between God and man. As the eternal Son of God, Jesus was by nature the Son of God and partaker of the Divine Nature. Through Jesus, a human can become a son of God through adoption and a sharer of the Divine nature. The saved human is still finite and limited. Through Jesus, the human becomes a “finite copy” of the infinite God. Thus there is still a divide. The persons of the Trinity have divinity by their very being and nature. The saved human, through Jesus gains fellowship with God and sonship by adoption. By nature, he is and always will be a finite creature. By God’s grace through Jesus he can experience fellowship with the infinite God and become as “God-like” as a finite creature is capable of. God was always God and never anything less. Man will always be man, although he can be deified by grace and share in and reflect God’s divinity. As I understand Mormonism, this division does not exist between Jesus and us, and in some periods of Mormonism it was claimed that God was at one time a man. There is no trace of the latter in early Christianity save one small quote from a 4th century Armenian religious document. In this document, the Fall is retold, and Satan, to tempt Eve, claims that God was once a man. I don’t believe the early Church would preserve its beliefs by “putting them in the mouth of Satan.” EGK | ||
| joesdad (joesdad) Advanced Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 552 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 |
I have read several discussions about this, and do not claim to be able to express many of the ideas surrounding this area sufficiently, so ask that you forgive my resorting at this point to pasting discussions of others. I will have read them beforehand, but feel that you have absic idea of LDS theology, but maybe have a false impression that it is ill thought out. Consider the following: We believe in and worship God the Father and Jesus Christ. They are one God, understanding "one" to refer to perfect unity. But the Bible also teaches that there are other beings that can be called "gods" - not just fictitious idols, but real beings. The existence of multiple heavenly beings that can be called "gods" is not an LDS innovation, as most of our critics charge, but is an solidly Biblical concept widely recognized by many serious Bible scholars. The concept of multiple heavenly beings that can be called "gods" begins with the first chapter of the Bible: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (Gen. 1:26). It occurs again in Gen. 3:22 ("Behold, the man is become as one of us") and Gen. 11:7 ("Come, let us go down and let us confound their language"). This form of speech, according to non-LDS scholar Frank Cross, "has long been recognized as the plural address used by Yahweh in his council" - referring to a council of heavenly beings - "gods" - subservient to the Almighty God [1]. The Interpreter's Bible states that in the creative act, "God first consults with divine beings other than himself." That source also explains that Hebrew religious thought "was familiar with the idea of a heavenly host with whom God took counsel." In fact, "it is fitting, if not necessary, that there should be something like cooperation on the part of the whole company of heaven" [2]. In general, Bible scholarship provides many references to a divine council having multiple beings (e.g., [3]). This should be no surprise once we realize that the Bible itself makes multiple references to such a council and to multiple real beings that can be called - surprise - "gods" or at least "sons of God." Job 1:6 is a famous example referring to such a council. Here are some other examples pointing to the plurality of godlike beings in the heavenly council or elsewhere: God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. (Psalm 82:1,6) The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? (John 10:33-36) As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1 Cor. 8:4-6) I will praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto thee. (Psalm 138:1) For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward.... (Deut. 10:17) Other examples are less obvious in the King James Version but still support the notion that multiple "gods" exist. In Psalm 8:4,5, David writes that God made man "a little lower than the gods." The KJV gives "lower than the angels," but the Hebrew word is "gods." (Some other translations give "heavenly beings" or "a god" for the Hebrew "elohim" in this passage.) Psalm 29:1 calls upon the "gods" to give glory to the Lord. The KJV simply says "Give unto the LORD, O ye mighty, give unto the LORD glory and strength." But the New English Bible, for example, is truer to the Hebrew text: Ascribe to the Lord, you gods, ascribe to the Lord glory and might. (Psalm 29:1, NEB) Psalm 89:5-7 also makes reference to the assembly of gods. One scholarly translation offers this: The heavens praise Thy wondrousness, O Yahweh, Likewise Thy trustworthiness in the assembly of the gods. For who in the skies can be compared with Yahweh; Who among the gods is like unto Yahweh? A god who inspires awe in the council of the gods, Who is great and fearful beyond all those who surround Him. (Julian Morgenstern, "The Mythological Background of Psalm 82," Hebrew Union College Annual (1939) 14:29-30, as cited by McConkie, p. 192). Further, "Psalm 97:7b likewise bids all the gods to bow down before God. Psalm 103:20-21 is an invocation directed to the celestial assembly, and Psalm 148:2 commands the angels of the Lord, all those who constitute his host, to praise him. Psalm 97:9b records that God is supreme over all the gods; Psalm 96:4 states that God is to be feared over all the gods; and Psalm 95:3 attests that God is a great king over all the gods" (McConkie, p. 192). What are we to make of this? Christ and others in the Bible speak of "gods" in a sense that does not refer to idols, but to heavenly beings. The gods praise the Lord, or it is before the gods that the author of Ps. 138 praises the Lord. There is a council or assembly of gods working with the Almighty God. Indeed, God is said to be a God of gods (definitely not a god of idols!). And humans have the potential to become "gods," according to Christ and the Old Testament. Though Paul initially speaks of false idols in 1 Cor. 8:4,5, he does insert the comment that there are "gods many and lords many." He does not speak of fictional beings, but real ones. Origen, an early Christian in the third century, explains his understanding of this passage: There are some gods of whom God is god, as we hear in prophecy, "Thank ye the God of gods," and "The God of gods hath spoken, and called the earth." Now God, according to the Gospel, "is not the God of the dead but of the living." Those gods, then, are living of whom God is god. The Apostle, too, writing to the Corinthians, says: "As there are gods many and lords many," and so we have spoken of these gods as really existing. (Source: Origen, Book I, Chapter 34, available online at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-37.htm#P6092_924944.) Clearly, the "gods" Paul speak of are subservient beings, like angels, and are not the source of salvation to us. Thus Paul could say that there are "gods many," but to us there is but one God (1 Cor. 8:5-8), indicating a difference between "gods" and "God." There are other beings that can be called "gods" - and Christ says the scripture to this effect cannot be broken (can't be denied) - yet we don't worship those beings. So yes, there are multiple gods, but we only worship the one Creator, the source of all godliness. Origen's use of Greek, by the way, illustrates the difference between multiple godlike beings and God the Father. With permission, I quote from e-mail I received from Eugene Seaich, Oct. 11, 1998: "Men should escape from being men, and hasten to BECOME GODS"(Origen, Commentary on John, 29.27, 29). "Thou shalt resemble Him...having made thee even God to his glory"(Refutations, X.30). Note that Origen's "gods" are THEOI. Both Clement and John called the Father HO THEOS, "the God" (with the definite article). Origen explains this important grammatical distinction by pointing out that The True God...is "the God" (HO THEOS, with the article), and those who are formed after him are "gods" (THEOI, without the article), "images," as it were, of him, the Prototype (Commentary on John, 7.2). It is very likely that Lorenzo Snow's famous aphorism, "As man now is God once was; and as God now is, man may be, should also be interpreted in light of this critical distinction between HO THEOS and the other THEOI. President Snow's "God who was once a man" would accordingly belong to the same category as Origen's THEOI, those who have BECOME gods after the Father's Prototype. But his "God who now is" would be HO THEOS, the Prototype himself, or "the God of all other gods" (D&C 121:32), the one who has always been God (Ps. 90:2; D&C 20:12), and to whose eternal likeness all others aspire. Indeed, there can never have been a time when HO THEOS was not God, nor has he ever been anything but what he now is (Mormon 9:19; Moroni 7:22; D&C 20:17). The more one digs into the scriptures and early Christianity, the more one sees that all the odd doctrines for which Latter-day Saints are condemned are actually "odd" doctrines from the Bible and original Christianity. These doctrines depart wildly from today's "normative" or mainstream Christianity, which raises a most serious question: just who has departed from what? The testimony of many early Christian writers after the initial New Testament days again confirms the LDS and Biblical view that humans have the potential to put on the divine nature and become "gods." I present some of that evidence on my LDS-FAQ page about "theosis" - the potential deification of human beings. There are a plurality of "gods" - whether that term refers to angels or glorified humans - it is a Biblical term that cannot be denied. But for us, there is but One God whom we worship, and His Son Jesus Christ (whom we adore and worship), who is One with the Father. That's solid LDS and Biblical doctrine - like it or not. Footnotes for the answer above: 1. Frank M. Cross, Jr., "The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 11.275 n.4.; H. Wheeler Robinson, "The Council of Yahweh," Journal of Theological Studies (1944) 45:155 pp. 154-55; also Raymond E. Brown, The Semitic Background of the Term "Mystery" in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968), p. 62. p. 3, n.9.; all as cited by Joseph F. McConkie, "Premortal Existence, Foreordinations, and Heavenly Councils," in Apocryphal Writings and the Latter-day Saints, C. Wilfred Griggs, ed., Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1986, p. 195. 2. The Interpreter's Bible 1:482-483. 3. Edwin C. Kingsbury, "The Prophets and the Council of Yahweh," Journal of Biblical Literature (1964) 83:279-86, as cited by McConkie, p. 186. See also R. N. Whybray, The Heavenly Counsellor in Isaiah 40:13-14 (Cambridge: University Press, 1971), p. 78. See also L. Ginzberg, The Book of Isaiah (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1973), p. 44, for an interesting reference to the "the assembly of the gods in the council" implied in Isaiah 14. That is a start not an answer | ||
| godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 991 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 4.255.47.120 |
Imply what you want. These are satan's lies!!!!Since your Heavenly Father is God, let's look at what your mormon book, "Gospel Principles" says about your God. Quote: pg. 305 This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God.... He was once a man like us;...God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ did" (teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46). Now, the mormons accept other translations of the Holy Bible, when for years they only accepted the kjv. The kjv says angels, when mormons now say gods. Demons and angels are spirits. Demons are fallen angels and no longer worsip God, though they know God is the only true and living God. Demons follow satan. Read Joshua 24:20-23 'put away false gods.' Genesis 35:2 'put away foreign gods that are among you.' Judges 10:16, 1 Sam. 7:3 'put away false gods and serve God only.' Jerimiah 5:19 Idolatry, worship of false gods. Acts 17:18 Paul's address to the Areopagus. Matthew 24:24 Jesus warned of false Christs and false prophets. Mark 13:22 Jesus again warns of false Christs and false prophets. Proverbs 6:19 14. Now, therefore, serve the Lord, serve Him in sincerity and truth, and put away the gods which your fathers served. 23. Therefore, put away the foreign gods that are among you. Men do not become angels nor were they ever angels. Angels were with God in Heaven before the world was. Men were not. Are you going to become an angel god? This is so damned ignorant and blasphemous. Mormon men do not want to become an angel or a god. They want and teach that they can become God. Satan's lie! Not only that, but mormons teach there is a Goddess, (not a goddess). But women cannot even hold the priesthood. Is this Goddess, God's wife, above or below mormon men? Or is she just a heavenly godmaker? | ||
| joesdad (joesdad) Advanced Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 554 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 |
GC: more of your usual constructive and reasoned criticism - if you don't understand it call it from Satan - and you call me brainwashed, what a joke!! | ||
| egk (egk) Intermediate Member Username: egk Post Number: 183 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 193.225.109.130 |
Joesdad, Again, I do not have time for a lengthy discussion. Let me make these quick points. I agree with the distinction between theoi and ho theos. I also agree that the result of the process of salvation will be the taking on of the divine nature. I also agree that only ho theos is to be worshipped. The differences between the LDS position (as I understand it) and that of the RCC are... Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God, we are at best adopted sons of God. Jesus was always the son, He is the son because of the relationship he has always shared with the Father in eternity. (The relationship between an earthly father and son, is but a weak reflection of the relationship between the Father and the Son. It is a relationship established in time, hence the earthly father precedes the son.) There was a time we were not, hence we are not eternal sons. There was never a time when the only begotten Son was not. No other being is to be worshipped but the one God, hence either Jesus is one in being with the Father, or Yaakov is correct and we are idolators. No mather how divine our nature becomes, we will always be creatures, at best we will be finite copies of the infinite God, which is some insignificant way poorly reflect the glory and the greatness of the one true God. The division between God and His creatures will always be infinite. I have not read Pres. Snow's comment, "As man now is God once was; and as God now is, man may be" in its original context. My understanding of basic English references says that both words "God" refers to the same being and both words "man" refers to the same collective being. I see nothing in the comment to support a difference between the referents of the words "God." Hence this comment in and of itself does not support the distinction between ho theos and theoi, but supports what I had been told was LDS teaching that the Father was once a man, and that we may become what the Father is now. Nowhere in early Christian writing is such a belief. There seems to be a great deal of debate as to whether such a teaching is found in early Mormon writings. Is it? EGK | ||
| joesdad (joesdad) Advanced Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 557 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 |
egk: Some comments too: We also believe that Jesus is the only begotten son of God in the flesh - i.e. we can only claim to have an earthly father in that way. WE only worship one God, through His son Jesus Christ, as Christ told us we should. LDS doctrine does not agree that we have not always existed in SOME FORM - of course our opinion of the relationship between God the Father and His son Jesus Christ are different. Of course we do not agree on the division between man and God, in a simple way we see it as a transformation, like a Caterpillar to a Butterfly - totally different beings, whilst in fact being the same | ||
| egk (egk) Intermediate Member Username: egk Post Number: 184 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 81.182.110.224 |
Joesdad, Thanks! Of course we do not agree on the division between man and God, in a simple way we see it as a transformation, like a Caterpillar to a Butterfly - totally different beings, whilst in fact being the same This beautiful sums up the difference between LDS and the Historic Christian faith. No early Christian write would describe our becoming gods in these terms. God is perfect and does not change. As the Scripture says "in Him there is no shadow of change" (I do not have the reference at hand) Likewise we worship the "God who dwells in unapproachable light" again emphaising the infinite division between God and His creation. There is a famous saying from Ireanus, roughly a contemporary of Origin which sums up this division and our becoming gods. "God became man, so that men might become gods." Thus Jesus the second person of the Trinity assumed humanity. Why? so we might share the divine nature. This quote was repeated and reflected in what the earlier Christians wrote concening our becoming God. It was not Jesus becoming a god, but God assuming human nature. EGK | ||
| egk (egk) Intermediate Member Username: egk Post Number: 185 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 81.182.110.76 |
Joesdad, We also believe that Jesus is the only begotten son of God in the flesh - i.e. we can only claim to have an earthly father in that way. WE only worship one God, through His son Jesus Christ, as Christ told us we should. So the Father did literally have intercourse with the virgin Mary?!?! If not, how was he begotten in the flesh? No one has ever seen God. It is God the only begotten, ever at the Father's side, who has revealed Him (John 1:18). Sure sounds like being the only begotten in His Divinity. (Having read JS "inspired" translation of the 1st chapter of John, I realize that the LDS may disregard this verse as being corrupt. I've also studied Greek and read the NT in the original several time. I cannot believe that John 1 originally said what JS' "translation" claims it said.) Is the Son to be worshipped or not? If He is to be worshipped and he is not ho theos, then we have idolatry. If he is not worshipped, then what to you do regarding him? You can't have it both ways. EGK | ||
| nulla (nulla) Intermediate Member Username: nulla Post Number: 232 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.173.180.87 |
Joesdad; “Consider the following: We believe in and worship God the Father and Jesus Christ. They are one God, understanding "one" to refer to perfect unity.” From: Joseph Smith's Sermon On Plurality of Gods (as printed in History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479) “I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years. I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it!” And “Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow Egk I have not read Pres. Snow's comment, "As man now is God once was; and as God now is, man may be" in its original context. My understanding of basic English references says that both words "God" refers to the same being and both words "man" refers to the same collective being. I see nothing in the comment to support a difference between the referents of the words "God." Hence this comment in and of itself does not support the distinction between ho theos and theoi, but supports what I had been told was LDS teaching that the Father was once a man, and that we may become what the Father is now. Nowhere in early Christian writing is such a belief. There seems to be a great deal of debate as to whether such a teaching is found in early Mormon writings. Is it? http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_06/refJDvol6-1.html | ||
| joesdad (joesdad) Advanced Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 558 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 |
EGK: No we do not believe that He had intercourse with Mary, we believe that Christ was the only man ever to be born without the "help" of an earthly father. We regard Christ as the son of God, and worship God through Him - just like He told us to. Maybe your confusion comes from how you view the matter, rather than what LDS believe. Do you know details of the "Grand Council in Heaven" (LDS theology from Book of Moses)? This helps to explain the relationships between God, Christ, us and Lucifer & his followers. | ||
| godchild (godchild) Advanced Member Username: godchild Post Number: 994 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 4.255.46.76 |
Even members of the mormon church find the idea of God literally having sex with Mary to be so offensive, they must deny this is what their leaders taught. There are many words whose definition mormons have changed: literal, eternal, exaltation, to name a few. Christians believe God has no beginning and no end. Mormons teach "God is an exalted man" and "God himself was once as we are now." This statement by Joseph Smith means that God is not eternal, because men have a beginning. What higher exaltation do mormons think God can have, or need? Joseph Smith thought God could, because he said "God will then take higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and therefore be exalted myself." Joseph Smith said God was once a man, who therefore must have had a literal (coming together of his father and mother by intercourse) father and mother, else he was never a man as we are. Did Joseph Smith think his parents didn't have intercourse to conceive him? This isn't what he was saying at all. And yet he taught he would be able to be another God, a man who becomes God. And that God became God by the same means. Joesdad says We believe that Christ was the only man ever to be born without the "help" of an earthly father. Is Jesus not God? Why do mormons teach that Jesus didn't have an earthly father, but that God had to have an earthly father, by Joseph Smith's definition. The whole idea by mormons, started by Joseph Smith, that the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods, is pagan belief, clear and simple. Satan wanted to become God. If he was already a god, why would he want to just take another god's place? If men are to become gods, when they were already once gods, what is the purpose of this life, (in mormon's minds) unless it is to try to take the 'head God's' place. | ||
| arron (arron) Advanced Member Username: arron Post Number: 531 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.119.39.9 |
the mormon church is wrong and has additions to the word of GOD. joseph was no prophet. | ||
| egk (egk) Intermediate Member Username: egk Post Number: 191 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 81.182.110.76 |
Robert, My understanding of LDS theology is that the Father and Heaven mother had spirit children, of whom were Jesus, Lucifer, and all of Humanity. There was war in Heaven with Jesus and Lucifer fighting on different sides. After the war, we were given opportunities to receive a body and be born. Jesus was no different from us, other than his conception and/or birth was different from ours and that he is the most advanced allong the path to godhood. Am I basically correct in my summary? This is radically different from what is revealed in John 1 where we read that the eternal word, who is God, chooses to dwell with us. What is your view of John 1? Several years ago, I read JS "translation" of John 1. As I remember, it is radically different from the Greek text, making the word the gospel preached and denying God becoming man. Do you disregard all translations of John 1 except JS'? I went on a retreat last weekend. The priest spoke of some of the basic foundational beliefs of Christianity. Some of these were Jesus being true God and true man, one in being with the Father. That God took on humanity in order to save us. As I understand it, LDS theology denies both. Peace, EGK | ||
| steelsword (steelsword) Junior Member Username: steelsword Post Number: 42 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 207.192.2.34 |
Egk , they do deny John 1:1 Try Walter Martins site and listen to the debate between him and mormon apologistt Van Hale, & see how Hale Tried to dance around John 1:1 as well.http://saintsalive.gygabyte.com/realmedia/MartinDebatesHale.ram | ||
| godchild (godchild) Senior Member Username: godchild Post Number: 1010 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 4.255.41.124 |
Chapter 2, Gospel Principles, pg. 11 Our Heavenly Family We are children of our Heavenly Father God is not only our ruler and creator; he is also our Heavenly Father. "All men and women are...literally the sons and daughters of Deity...Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal (physical) body" (Joseph F. Smith, "The Origin of Man," Improvement Era, Nov. 1909,pp.78,80 Every person who was ever born on earth was our spirit brother or sister in heaven. The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ (see D&C 93:21), so he is literally our elder brother (see Discourses of Brigham Young, p.26). Because we are the spiritual children of our heavenly parents, we have inherited the potential to develoop their divine qualities. If we choose to do so, we can become perfect, just as they are. ----------------- John 1:10:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. How can mormons agree that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, and yet say that we are all begotten children of God? Ah yes. They believe that Jesus is the only Begotten of God and Mary! Literally. Galatians 4:4-5 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. | ||
| egk (egk) Intermediate Member Username: egk Post Number: 192 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 193.225.109.130 |
Hi Robert and Godchild, Godchild brought up an aspect of historic Christianity which I forgot to mention. Unlike Jesus, we are adopted children of God. (There is a sense in which all humans can be called God's children, but that is not what we are referring to here.) That is any share we have in the Divine nature, in any way we are gods, it is through being adopted children of God and through our union with Jesus. As a modern theologian said, summing up the Biblical teaching and that of the early Christians, "we participate in the Trinity through our union with Jesus." Thus instead of many independent gods (which I believe is the LDS position, correct me if I'm wrong), we have just one Triune God, any divinity that we will have is but a partaking in the Divine nature of the second person of the Trinity. EGK | ||
| joesdad (joesdad) Advanced Member Username: joesdad Post Number: 566 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 62.253.215.25 |
egk: Simply, yes you understand correctly. "Jesus being true God and true man, one in being with the Father" - We agree with the first part and not with the second (so far as I understand how it is meant) "That God took on humanity in order to save us" - I believe that Jesus did not HAVE to take on mortality, but condecended to as it was needful for US that He did so, as He was the only one that would be an acceptable sacrifice for the sins of men. I do not agree that we deny both, we look at your statements in a wider aspect. Please expalin the sense in which we CAN be referred to as children of God. PLease excuse my ignorance, or maybe just being used to difference terms of reference and expression. Could you explain what you mean by some of the terms in your last post, such as "divine nature", "union with jesus", "participate in the Trinity" "independant gods", "divinity (in context of "any divinty we have"), "partaking in the divine nature", thank you. | ||
| nulla (nulla) Intermediate Member Username: nulla Post Number: 245 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.173.180.87 |
Joesdad, "I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is UNCHANGEABLE from all eternity to all eternity" (Moroni 8:18). "For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and in him there is no variableness, neither shadow of changing? And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles" (Mormon 9:9-10)." Remember, JS maintained the inspiration and truth of the Book of Mormon then at the same time he believed the following: "God himself was ONCE as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! Is the BoM the word of god and sacred scripture to members of the LDS? If I were new mormonism and reading the BoM what would I be led to believe in reading those verses from Moroni and Mormon Was JS permitted to change his mind at will on very important church doctrines? Nulla (Message edited by nulla on December 09, 2005) | ||
| godchild (godchild) Senior Member Username: godchild Post Number: 1166 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 4.255.42.121 |
from Gospel Principles pg.11 We are children of our Heavenly Father. God is not only our ruler and creator; his is also our Heavenly Father. "All mean and womean are...literally the sons and daughters of Deity...Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body" (Joseph F. Smith, "The Origin of Man," Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, pp. 78,80). Every person who was ever born on earth was our spirit brother or sister in heaven. The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ (see Discourses of Brigham Young, p.26). Because we are the spiritual children of our heavenly parentys, we have inherited the potential to develop their divine qualities. If we choose to do so, we can become perfect, just as they are. This will show another contradiction in mormon doctine: Gospel Principles, pg. 9 What kind of being is God? Because we are made in his image, we know that God has a body that looks like ours. His eternal spirit is housed in a tangible body of flesh and bones (see D&c 130:22). God's body, however, is perfected and glorified, witha glory beyond all description. All good things come from God. Everything that he does is to help his children become like him--a god. How does a perfected body of flesh and bones have spirit children? Tangible means things we can physically touch and see. No man has seen God and lived. Jesus said only He sees the Father and the Father sees Him. And yet joe smith claimed to have seen them both. So, was joe smith a god before he will become a god? | ||
| nulla (nulla) Intermediate Member Username: nulla Post Number: 249 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.173.180.87 |
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (John 4:24) Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luke 24:39 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (Colossians 1:15) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen... (Romans 1:19-20) Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. (1 Timothy 1:17) ...who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. (1 Timothy 6:15-16) By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible. (Hebrews 11:27) No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:18) Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. (John 6:46) Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. (Isaiah 44:6) Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last. (Isaiah 48:12) | ||
| nulla (nulla) Intermediate Member Username: nulla Post Number: 257 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.173.180.87 |
From the Book of ALMA 11:28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? 11:29 And he answered, No. 11:30 Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things? 11:31 And he said: An angel hath made them known unto me. 11:32 And Zeezrom said again: Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God? 11:33 And he said unto him, Yea. 11:34 And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word. 11:35 Now Zeezrom said unto the people: See that ye remember these things; for he said there is but one God; yet he saith that the Son of God shall come, but he shall not save his people--as though he had authority to command God. And Ether 3:14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. Joseph Smith said, "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (History of the Church, Vol. 4, page 461). Joseph Smith …. King Follett Discourse God himself. was Once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible,—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another. Hinckley On whether the LDS Church holds that, "God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain, ‘I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it ... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it,’" Hinckley told Time. Brigham Young "...no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 289).” So we have an early mormon view along the lines of Christianity, then Joseph changes what was supposed to be the word of god and the present president does not seem to know that this is the current teaching even though BY told mormons the only way is through JS Joesdad “We also believe that Jesus is the only begotten son of God in the flesh - i.e. we can only claim to have an earthly father in that way. WE only worship one God, through His son Jesus Christ, as Christ told us we should. LDS doctrine does not agree that we have not always existed in SOME FORM - of course our opinion of the relationship between God the Father and His son Jesus Christ are different. Well Joesdad… I must have been reading the wrong version of the BoM For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time. (2 Nephi 11:7) And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen. OLIVER COWDERY (Introduction Preface:11) ...And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen. (2 Nephi 31:21) Happy New Year To All… May it bring peace and happiness through our Lord Jesus Christ Nulla (Message edited by nulla on December 30, 2005) | ||
| nulla (nulla) Intermediate Member Username: nulla Post Number: 258 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.173.180.87 |
Joesdad wrote.. "EGK: No we do not believe that He had intercourse with Mary, we believe that Christ was the only man ever to be born without the "help" of an earthly father. " We regard Christ as the son of God, and worship God through Him - just like He told us to. Maybe your confusion comes from how you view the matter, rather than what LDS believe. Robert A. Rees served as bishop of the Los Angeles First Ward. He gave a sacrament meeting talk on April 29th, 1990, and provided an article to Dialogue that is found in the Winter, 1991 issue. It is entitled, "Bearing Our Crosses Gracefully: Sex and the Single Mormon." In it we find the following: Mormons differ from other Christians in our literal belief that we are begotten of God spiritually and that Christ was begotten of him physically. Paul says in Acts that we are God's offspring (17:28-29). We believe that our spiritual conception was sexual just as we believe that Christ's mortal conception was. Elucidating the latter, James E. Talmage says, "That child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law, but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof" (1986, 81). As President of the Quorum of the Twelve, President Ezra Taft Benson made the following statement: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the son of the Eternal Father!" [cited in J. F. McConkie, Here We Stand p. 167] Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol.3, p.141 Begotten] Begotten means begotten; it means Christ's mortal body was procreated by an Eternal Sire; it means God is the Father of Christ, "after the manner of the flesh." (1 Ne. 11:18.) The Pearl of Great Price: Revelations From God, p.94 However, scripture describes Jesus as the Firstborn of the Father, not only in terms of the human family, but in [p.95] terms of every world and every form of life organized under the Father's direction. Paul wrote: "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible [seen and unseen].…And he is before all things, and by him all things consist" (Coloss. 1:16-17; emphasis added; cf. Rev. 3:14).9 In other words, our God's first creative act as a Father was to sire his Firstborn and Only Begotten Son. | ||
| godchild (godchild) Senior Member Username: godchild Post Number: 1278 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 4.255.41.80 |
Nulla, A long time ago I told Solo and joesdad that i was taught this in an investigators class back in 1971-2. I had been a member for many years already but when my children and I attended in Anchorage, they sent me to an investigators class instead of the regular adult class. I was called a lair on factnet by these mormons so I thank you for confirming that I am not a liar. When that happened I went to my Mother and asked her about it, as I was pretty shocked. (I had been a member for over 10 years by that time and had never been told that, nor that men would become gods.) Mom gave me the pat mormon answer which I got often, which was "They shouldn't have told you that. You aren't 'worthy enough' to understand that yet." And wouldn't say anymore, and she didn't deny it. I should have left the church at that time, but since I was mostly inactive, I didn't care then. This is pretty typical of mormons I know. When I have talked to them about getting out of the church, they say they agree the church is not true, but it would break up their families if they get out. When I did get out, one of my sisters said, "How can you do this to Mom." Another sister said "You embarassed the whole family." I didn't think it was about Mom but my soul. | ||
| nulla (nulla) Intermediate Member Username: nulla Post Number: 259 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.173.180.87 |
Godchild, check this site.. In particular the drawings used for classes; http://www.aomin.org/BEGOTTEN.html From the Family Home Evenings booklet, copyright 1972 by the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, pp. 125-126: We must come down to the simple fact that God Almighty was the Father of His Son Jesus Christ. Mary, the virgin girl, who had never known mortal man, was his mother. God by her begot his Son Jesus Christ, and he was born into the world with power and intelligence like that of His Father. . . . Now, my little friends, I will repeat again in words as simple as I can, and you talk to your parents about it, that God, the Eternal Father, is literally the father of Jesus Christ. (Joseph F. Smith, Box Elder Stake Conference Dec. 20, 1914 as quoted in Brigham City Box Elder News, 28 Jan. 1915, pp. 1-2). | ||
| godchild (godchild) Senior Member Username: godchild Post Number: 1280 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 4.255.46.231 |
What I find interesting is that by denying this is the mormon belief, jd is confirming my statements that I wasn't told for many years after becoming a mormon, (and then by accident), this doctrine. Obviously, he has not been taught this yet. How is it possible that someone who (1) holds the priesthood, (2) has been through the temple, which is limited to worthy members, hasn't been taught this doctrine. Could it be the mormon church knows if men/women were told this up front, they would never join this cult? Are members told to deny this and other doctrines? Worthiness to a mormon means doing works defined by the church. | ||
| nulla (nulla) Intermediate Member Username: nulla Post Number: 261 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 202.173.180.87 |
They keep as much as they can from new or potential members and do as much as they can to promote the LDS as a Christian church and JS is portrayed as a saint. I was in a suburb where my hospital has a branch and it has the largest Chinese population in Melbourne. The LDS have missionaries from Hong Kong and some westerners fluent in Cantonese to do the LDS promo. When I asked them a few questions they all had no answers to them… like JS and plural marriages… is god of flesh and bone etc. They all had a Bible in hand |
