Originally Posted By DlandDug Sigh. I can't resist the topic at hand. The Mormon Church does more than teach that men may become godlike. They teach that men may become literal gods. But, as they claim, this is not a new idea. It is also not a "restored" idea. It is, quite literally, the oldest lie in the book. Genesis 3:4, 5 says, "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die. For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof [of the fruit of the tree], then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods..." Whether you believe this is literal description of historic events, an allegory, a fable, or a fairy tale, it points out that mankind's vanity has been tempted by the promise of godhead since the very beginning of the recorded word. There's nothing new here. What is new is the Mormon Church's teaching that the appeal to godhead is not only a good thing, but a restored promise of God, when the scripture (scripture that Mormons claim as part of their canon) makes it clear this was a temptation that led to mankind's separation from God.
Originally Posted By utahjosh DlandDug, If you want to quote bible passages about the potential of Man, I can participate: "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God…. And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" (Rom. 8:14-17). What does joint-heir mean? What is Christ receiving? Glorified with him? "Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High" (Ps. 82:6; John 10:34-38) See also 1 John 3:2; 1 Corinthians 15:49; 2 Corinthians 3:18; John 17:21-23; Philippians 3:21; Gen. 3:22; Matt. 5:48; Ps. 16:11; John 17:3 Also, Augustine of Hippo (a.d. 354-430), a great early Christian Fathers, said: "But he himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. 'For he has given them power to become the sons of God' [John 1:12]. If then we have been made sons of god, we have also been made gods." (On the Psalms, 50.2)
Originally Posted By u k fan I think that one of the problems with the Bible is that if I wanted to prove the sky is pink I could probably find a scripture to back me up!!!
Originally Posted By utahjosh Agreed, ukfan. I love the Bible, I read it nearly daily, and find inspiration and truth and most importantly, the story of my Savior. However, my post 122 was to kind of show that you can find lots of scriptures in the Bible to back up whatever viewpoints you have about God and religion - they are just understood differently.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>What does joint-heir mean? What is Christ receiving? Glorified with him?<< The passage clearly teaches that we will become joint-heirs in sharing the Kingdom of God, not that we will become gods. Christ is already God, as clearly stated in John 1:1. He does not receive something he already possesses. >>"Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High" (Ps. 82:6; John 10:34-38)<< Good that the cross reference to John is already included, as that is where Christ himself refuted the notion that the passage in Psalms stated that men were gods. The passage in Psalms refered exclusively to the judges who ruled Israel, and was not a general statement or promise for all. The judges were refered to as gods in this context, because they represented the God and brought His word to the people. Christ explains this in John. (In point of fact, Jesus was accused of calling making himself a god. If this was a "truth" that needed to be restored centuries later by Joseph Smith, why was Christ being confronted with it in his own lifetime? Answer: It was never a truth.)
Originally Posted By ecdc >>The Mormon Church does more than teach that men may become godlike. They teach that men may become literal gods. But, as they claim, this is not a new idea. It is also not a "restored" idea. It is, quite literally, the oldest lie in the book.<< This particular doctrine is one of the most fascinating in the church right now. Mormons have become so obsessed with public relations and looking normal that they do typically say that they believe you can become godlike. (President Hinckley, in his interview with Mike Wallace, volunteered that "we are not a weird people; if you have to tell people you aren't weird, it's not a good sign.) As Dug points out, the teaching has always been that Mormons literally become gods - equals with God the Father. But at what point does the public relations turn into the doctrine? That's what I see the church wrestling with today (and it's frankly where many Evangelicals miss the boat - they're still focused on Mormon teachings that Mormons themselves are slowly abandoning). My own mother, a lifelong and still active Mormon, told me that she read a Newsweek article on Mitt Romney that got all sorts of things wrong. "It said we believed the Garden of Eden was in Missouri!" she said, sounding like it was a preposterous idea. Of course, Joseph Smith taught that it was. But can it really be called a Mormon teaching or Mormon doctrine if hardly any Mormons today actually believe it? Again, it's why I'm always critical of Evangelicals who profess to know what Mormons believe. Unless you're a part of the community, you can't appreciate these subtleties and changes. You can quote Joseph Smith and Brigham Young until the cows come home, but it doesn't mean Mormons today believe it, or even know their leaders once said it.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>But that doctrine about the Father and Son [being separate gods] certainly was taught many times before 1833 (the date of the quote you posted.) The Book of Mormon, published in 1830, makes that point of doctrine clear.<< Actually, it teaches just the opposite. And one does not have to go to edited passages to find this. The best catechism about this is in the Book of Mormon scripture Mosiah 15:1-4, "And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. 2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son— 3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son— 4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth." Note that it says, very plainly, that the Father and Son are one God, not "one in a unity of purpose." There is not even an implication of this. This makes sense, as Smith had not yet introduced the idea that the Father and Son were separate beings until after the writing of the Book of Mormon. See also Alma 11:26-29, "26 And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God? 27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God. 28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? 29 And he answered, No." Note even the article "a" is used when refering to "A true and living God." And while it is not part of the canon of scripture (as far as I know), the Testimony of Three WItnesses that is found at the beginning of most copies of the Book of Mormon ends with the words, "And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen." Like it or not, Smith did not introduce the idea that there was more than one god until well after the production of the Book of Mormon. You may call it ongoing revelation or whatever, but it is quite evident from writings that are both sacred to the Mormon church, as well as historical and contemporary.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Like it or not, Smith did not introduce the idea that there was more than one god until well after the production of the Book of Mormon. You may call it ongoing revelation or whatever, but it is quite evident from writings that are both sacred to the Mormon church, as well as historical and contemporary.<< Dug's gotcha here, Josh. There's simply no way to deny that Joseph Smith's teachings evolved. Like he said, call it what you will, but it happened. Again though, these are hardly reasons to discount the Mormon faith. I reiterate what I quoted before: "You have to ask whether you are applying a double standard when you focus on all the messiness of Joseph Smith’s life and the lack of proof for the Book of Mormon when at the same time you give a free pass to venerable older faiths whose own messiness is conveniently lost in the mists of time."
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>You can quote Joseph Smith and Brigham Young until the cows come home, but it doesn't mean Mormons today believe it, or even know their leaders once said it.<< In the same sense that there are many Christians who do not really know what their faith teaches, this is true. The difference is that many of the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and other early church leaders are considered part of the Mormon canon of scripture. As such, they are fair game for those who are trying to understand the Mormon faith. Simply saying, "that's not what I believe" is not a sufficient excuse.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad The LDS is perhaps the greatest scam in history. In non religius terms, it has highjacked Christianity in the name of truth through deception. Regardless of my personal faith, academically this is obviously the case. The very premsis of being the one true church restored is right there for all of us to see, read, hear, and pray (while reading James 1:5 of course) about. There's nothing new, nothing mysterious, nothing spectacular about the LDS, nor Christianity for that matter. People who know, know. All of these LDS threads aren't going to change their minds about anything. There is no way theologically around the logic that if man can become god, and attain some various level of salvation through works, then there was no need for Christ. So the LDS is fundamentally flawed from the start. Mind you, I am NOT arguing IN FAVOR of Christianity, just saying that both Christianity and the LDS cannot BOTH be right, and since LDS doesn't work without Christianity being wrong or going wrong, reason says that the LDS is simply, a rip off of something that was already there. No offense, nothing meant to be personal. Just my own two cents worth. I would like to hear replies from both camps on this.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <There is no way theologically around the logic that if man can become god, and attain some various level of salvation through works, then there was no need for Christ. > I'll reply to this one. The LDS people believe that the ONLY way to be able to return and live with God (and eventually become like Him) is FIRST to be cleansed from our sin through the atonement of Jesus Christ. No other way to do that. So your claim that in LDS theology "there is no need for Christ" is untrue.
Originally Posted By jonvn "LDS is simply, a rip off of something that was already there. " Much like Christianity is a rip off of Judaism.
Originally Posted By utahjosh And the LDS church does not disagree with the Christianity as taught by Christ in the Bible. We disagree with some of the ideas set forth in the 4th, 5th centuries, and thus some of the ideas of Protestant, Catholic, Baptist, and other Christian denominations. We don't claim to be a "break-off" of those. Some say we are, we claim we are not.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>The difference is that many of the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and other early church leaders are considered part of the Mormon canon of scripture.<< Not really. The only thing that really are part of the Mormon canon outside of the Bible and Book of Mormon is "The Doctrine and Covenants" and "The Pearl of Great Price." These hardly qualify as "many of the writings" and they come almost exclusively from Joseph Smith. Like most books of scripture, they can be interpreted in many different ways. Mormons have begun to reinterpret them in ways that allows the unique doctrines to fade away. Any other writings, popular as they may be among Mormons, are not in their canon of scripture. All that said, I do think Mormons set themselves up to criticism more than other faiths. When you revere your leaders so much, when you claim you're the "one and only true church", and when you claim your faith is a restoration of Christ's church, you're pretty much begging people to find flaws. Sometimes I think people hold Mormons to an absurd standard. Other times, I think they're only holding Mormons to the same standards Mormons hold themselves to.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>And the LDS church does not disagree with the Christianity as taught by Christ in the Bible... We don't claim to be a "break-off"...<< Actually, LDS claims to be a restoration. That restoration includes such unique doctrines as multiple gods, man's exhaltation to godhead, plural marriage (either for time or eternity), the need for the restoration of the Gospel, an exclusive priesthood, physical temples with secret ordinances, ongoing revelation and scripture, and a leader who is presented as the Prophet, Seer and Revelator of God. For Christians, there can be no reconciliation as long as the Mormon faith insists on holding to these unique ideas. I truly have no interest in playing "gotcha." But I have had a long interest in the Mormon faith, and am also quite ready to explain the differences between it and Christianity. I also have no interest in telling anyone they are wrong to believe as they wish. But I have no qualms about stating where someone is wrong in claiming that Mormonism is just another denomination of Christianity.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<Much like Christianity is a rip off of Judaism.>> Except that Christianity admits it Jewish roots. It doen't pretend to be the "original, uncorrupted" Judaism.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Except that Christianity admits it Jewish roots." And Mormonism admits it's "christian" roots. What christianity does proclaim itself as, though, is Judaism fufilled. That, it is not.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<Actually, LDS claims to be a restoration. That restoration includes such unique doctrines as multiple gods, man's exhaltation to godhead>> Which also does not square with Judaism. Another thing to consider is the Malabar Church in India. The Malabar Church was founded during the time of the Apostles (they claim to have been founded by the Apostle Thomas). They were highly isolated early on from the rest of the Church, before the NT scriptures were written. They had to rely only on verbal tradition for many centuries until they were "rediscovered" by European missionaries. It would be interesting if the Malabar Church had LDS like doctrines, but alas, they did not. I bring this up because of LDS accusations of the introduction of new doctrines in latter centuries by the Catholic Church. The Malabar are in a sense a "fossil" church that was untouched by the various church councils over the centuries. Yet, their theology was quite in line with that taught by the historical churches of the west: Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, etc.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<And Mormonism admits it's "christian" roots.>> No it doesn't. It claims to be the original, uncorrupted form of Christianity <<What christianity does proclaim itself as, though, is Judaism fufilled.>> Correct, an extension of Judaism.
