The Mormon Belief of Deification

[proveallthings]

If you really want to examine the TRUE nature of Jesus Christ, as found in the Bible alone, then compare it with what your Book of Mormon says about Him, I will be happy to do so. If we do this carefully, and we use our sources to state what is written, we MAY be able to do this without runnikng afoul of the tos.

I think this is a great idea. Since you believe in the Bible only, perhaps you could start with a Bible quote or quotes descriptive of a characteristic of Jesus Christ. Since I am more familiar with the Book of Mormon, I will see if I can find a reference or references in it that I believe match yours from the Bible. We can examine the comparisons one by one. We should start a new thread for this purpose. I think the mods would be more accepting of this if you would start it. I’ll look for it in this forum.

 

[By Grace]

PAT wrote:
When anything or person becomes something, it is usually just assumed that they still are the thing they became unless otherwise stated. Mormons believe that Jesus IS and was the great I Am from before the foundation of the world, which is exactly what the Bible teaches. Mormons also believe in the two natures, that Jesus was both God and Human during His earthly ministry.

You are conflating the the meanings of the verb "is" and "become" . the verb "is" is stative in the sense that it means a PERMANENT state of being whereas the verb "become indicates a metamorphosis, by definition.

What do you mean by stating " Mormons believe that Jesus IS and was the great I Am from before the foundation of the world"? Iit has been my experience that when Mormons start playing "We are Christians like you are." that the Mormon definitions are entirely different than what the Bible says.

More to the point, I could pull up many statements by JS and BY that they hated Christianity, and denounced its pastors. Therefore I am wondering why you are stating things contrary to what your prophets stated.

PAT wrote:
If you understood 2 Nephi 25:23 in context with the rest of the BofM you would know that it means that even after all we can do, it is still only the grace of Christ that saves. I don’t see how that make works more important than grace.

• Nephi 25:2323
• For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

Grammatically, your interpolation is impossible given the syntax of that verse. The word "after" means "subsequent to" and means that "grace kicks in AFTER we do..." I do not know why you are trying to rewrite what is in the BoM.

But you fail to deal with all the OTHER verses that say essentially the same thing that works come first:

3 Nephi 23:5
5 And whosoever will hearken unto my words and repenteth and is baptized, the same shall be saved​

So which is correct? Is it what you say, that you are "just like Christians" or what the BoM and history say that historically, Mormons hate Christians, and the BoM says that you have to have "merit badges" like baptism and repentance?

 

[By Grace]

By Grace said: ↑
YOU MIXED YOUR REPLY TO JAMISON WITH MINE
You are confusing procession with subordination. God sent out Jesus to the world John 3:16 because that was HIS PLAN, not because Jesus was any way inferi. The fancy word for that is ordo salutus which is Latin for "order of salvation".

This point is not about the equality of the Father and the Son. This is about the idea of whether Jesus and His Father are the same being or two separate beings. You appeared to agree with me that they are separate, which is counter to what Jamesone5 stated as his belief.

I am aware of the tactics which they teach at MTS in Provo, and this trying to concoct up that we "agree" is utter balderdash. From this keyboard, it appears that you either misunderstand what I meant, ot have your understand so immersed in your Mormon theology that you can't see the difference between Christian theology and Mormon doctrine.

• "The Father is God"
• "The Son is God"
• "The Holy Spirit is God"
• "God is the Father"
• "God is the Son"
• "God is the Holy Spirit"
• "The Father is not the Son"
• "The Son is not the Father"
• "The Father is not the Holy Spirit"
• "The Holy Spirit is not the Father"
• "The Son is not the Holy Spirit"
• "The Holy Spirit is not the Son"

The Shield of the Trinity is not generally intended to be any kind of schematic diagram of the structure of God, but instead is merely a compact visual device from which the above statements (contained in or implied by the Athanasian Creed) can be read off. SOURCE

All I said is in agreement with this shield, and its summary below it.That cannot be said for Mormon doctrine.

 

[proveallthings]

I am aware of the tactics which they teach at MTS in Provo, and this trying to concoct up that we "agree" is utter balderdash. From this keyboard, it appears that you either misunderstand what I meant, ot have your understand so immersed in your Mormon theology that you can't see the difference between Christian theology and Mormon doctrine.

• "The Father is God"
• "The Son is God"
• "The Holy Spirit is God"
• "God is the Father"
• "God is the Son"
• "God is the Holy Spirit"
• "The Father is not the Son"
• "The Son is not the Father"
• "The Father is not the Holy Spirit"
• "The Holy Spirit is not the Father"
• "The Son is not the Holy Spirit"
• "The Holy Spirit is not the Son"

The Shield of the Trinity is not generally intended to be any kind of schematic diagram of the structure of God, but instead is merely a compact visual device from which the above statements (contained in or implied by the Athanasian Creed) can be read off. SOURCE

All I said is in agreement with this shield, and its summary below it.That cannot be said for Mormon doctrine.

Actually, every one of the above twelve statements about the Godhead can be understood in a way to be in complete harmony with Mormon doctrine. I do have a hard time understanding, however, why someone who believes the Bible to be the complete word of God would reference a creed of man to describe the God of the Bible rather than the Bible itself. This seems very contradictory to me.

 

[proveallthings]

You are conflating the the meanings of the verb "is" and "become" . the verb "is" is stative in the sense that it means a PERMANENT state of being whereas the verb "become indicates a metamorphosis, by definition.

You are changing the English language to mean what you want it to mean in order to prove your point. First of all, I we have been using the word became, not become. There is a big difference. Became means that something was once different that it IS now. The word IS only refers to the the present status of the subject and is completely neutral as to what the subject was or will be.

What do you mean by stating " Mormons believe that Jesus IS and was the great I Am from before the foundation of the world"? Iit has been my experience that when Mormons start playing "We are Christians like you are." that the Mormon definitions are entirely different than what the Bible says.

It has been your experience because you have no desire to understand, but only to find fault. With that attitude you will never understand the truth of anything.

More to the point, I could pull up many statements by JS and BY that they hated Christianity, and denounced its pastors. Therefore I am wondering why you are stating things contrary to what your prophets stated.

Again, you have read statements pulled out of context by critics who put the statements in a false context to create a deceptive perspective. What I have said only conflicts with the conclusions reached from this false perception. Mormon leaders have only displayed displeasure for false Christianity. You will never find a statement where a Mormon leader criticized the Christianity of the New Testament. While denouncing the practices and teachings of false pastors, they have always treated them with love and acceptance when allowed to do so.

• Nephi 25:2323
• For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

Grammatically, your interpolation is impossible given the syntax of that verse. The word "after" means "subsequent to" and means that "grace kicks in AFTER we do..." I do not know why you are trying to rewrite what is in the BoM.

I gave you a very reasonable alternate interpretation, which you refuse to even consider. What more can I say.

But you fail to deal with all the OTHER verses that say essentially the same thing that works come first:

3 Nephi 23:5
5 And whosoever will hearken unto my words and repenteth and is baptized, the same shall be saved​

So which is correct? Is it what you say, that you are "just like Christians" or what the BoM and history say that historically, Mormons hate Christians, and the BoM says that you have to have "merit badges" like baptism and repentance?

How is this scripture saying anything different than Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38. And how about John 3:5. Every commentary on this verse written in the first 1000+ years of Christianity interprets this to mean that water baptism is required for entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven. You are arguing against the Bible here as much as you are Mormonism.

 

[By Grace]

Actually, every one of the above twelve statements about the Godhead can be understood in a way to be in complete harmony with Mormon doctrine.

That, which I made red is a logical gap the size of the Grand Canyon. IOW, your words indicate that through the manipulation of words, and the usage of Christian terms to mean non-christian things you can make the Bible "to be in harmony" with the BoM. By doing that, we wind up with Jabberwocky " `Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:..."

In realty, there is nothing in the BoM's version of jesus christ which can be directly supported by the Bible. Plainly, Jesus was not exalted through eternal progression.

I do have a hard time understanding, however, why someone who believes the Bible to be the complete word of God would reference a creed of man to describe the God of the Bible rather than the Bible itself. This seems very contradictory to me.

The issue of the creeds is a derail. However, since you brought it up, I challenge you to post which of the 12 statements of the Apostle's Creed is NOT supported directly from Scripture.

You are changing the English language to mean what you want it to mean in order to prove your point. First of all, I we have been using the word became, not become. There is a big difference. Became means that something was once different that it IS now. The word IS only refers to the the present status of the subject and is completely neutral as to what the subject was or will be.

You, sir are making a difference where there is no distinction. "Become" and "became" are the same verb, but their tenses differ; one is present tense, and the other is past tense.

By Grace said: ↑

• Nephi 25:2323
• For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

Grammatically, your interpolation is impossible given the syntax of that verse. The word "after" means "subsequent to" and means that "grace kicks in AFTER we do..." I do not know why you are trying to rewrite what is in the BoM.

I gave you a very reasonable alternate interpretation, which you refuse to even consider. What more can I say.

Not quite so. What you did was the same thing as you said above can be understood in a way... and you have manipulated the one verse to make it say what you wish it said. OTOH, I gave you a simple, plain English version of both your verse, plus the Bible and I also gave you SEVERAL OTHER VERSES from BoM, all of which say the same thing as 2 Nephi 25:23 . Therefore, by the preponderance of contravening verses from your BoM, there is no way that anyone can manipulate the plain English meanings of those verses to mean anything other than what they say.

Every commentary on this verse [ John 3:5.] written in the first 1000+ years of Christianity interprets this to mean that water baptism is required for entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven.

CFR

Please supply your source for such a statement

Here is the verse in context. Jesus does NOT teach the necessity of baptism for salvation, otherwise He would have said so.

John 3: 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
​

If that were so, then Jesus would be teaching a heresy called "baptismal regeneration"; and that would be contrary to what happened at His baptism by John. John recognized Him as the Son of God before the baptism, calling Jesus "The Lamb slain before the foundation of the Earth"

Please read this from John 1:

John 1:25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.
31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
​

There is no way that this will support any Mormon teaching about their jesus christ and baptism.

 

[proveallthings]

In realty, there is nothing in the BoM's version of jesus christ which can be directly supported by the Bible. Plainly, Jesus was not exalted through eternal progression.

First of all, could you please give me a reference where the Book of Mormon discusses Jesus being exalted through eternal progression? In the dozens of times I have read it I have never come across this teaching in the BofM.

Second, you say nothing in the BofM can be supported by the Bible, so here are some verses from the BofM that describe Jesus in the ways I think Evangelicals would say agrees with the Bible.

1Nephi 11:18-21 talks about the Son of the Eternal Father being born of a virgin, referred to in verse 27 as the Redeemer of the world and in verse 31 as the Lamb of God. Also in verse 27 is says that the prophet sent to prepare the way before Him baptized the Lamb of God and that the Holy Ghost appeared in the form of a dove.

2Nephi 9:5 says that as the great Creator, Jesus will become subject to man in the flesh and die for all men and later in verses 6 and 7 it says that because of the fall, He will bring to pass the resurrection and the atonement. In verse 19 it says, “O the greatness and mercy of our God, the Holy One of Israel! For he delivereth his saints from that awful monster the devil, and death, and hell, and that lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment.”

In Mosiah 3:8 it says, “And he shall be called Jesus Christ the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.”

There is stuff like this throughout the Book of Mormon. Do these ideas conflict with your interpretation of what is taught in the Bible?

The issue of the creeds is a derail. However, since you brought it up, I challenge you to post which of the 12 statements of the Apostle's Creed is NOT supported directly from Scripture.

It was not the Apostle’s Creed you referred to. Why do you refer to it now? Is it because the first creed you referred to cannot be so easily supported by scripture? I have nothing against anything that is stated in the Apostle’s Creed, but I have a hard time understanding why a person who thinks the Bible is the complete word of God would see the need for any such creed. If the teachings of the Bible are so clear, why not just say it or a passage from it, is your creed?

Not quite so. What you did was the same thing as you said above can be understood in a way... and you have manipulated the one verse to make it say what you wish it said. OTOH, I gave you a simple, plain English version of both your verse, plus the Bible and I also gave you SEVERAL OTHER VERSES from BoM, all of which say the same thing as 2 Nephi 25:23 . Therefore, by the preponderance of contravening verses from your BoM, there is no way that anyone can manipulate the plain English meanings of those verses to mean anything other than what they say.

Yet that is exactly what you keep attempting to do. You of course believe I have done the same, so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree here.

proveallthings: Every commentary on this verse [ John 3:5.] written in the first 1000+ years of Christianity interprets this to mean that water baptism is required for entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Please supply your source for such a statement

Here is one example of many from the 2nd century church father Irenaeus in his famous First Apology (written about 155 AD). In this document he has the following to say about Baptism by water:
Those who are persuaded and believe that the things we teach and say are true, and promise that they can live accordingly, are instructed to pray and beseech God with fasting for the remission of their past sins, while we pray and fast along with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are reborn by the same manner of rebirth by which we ourselves were reborn; for they are then washed in the water in the name of God the Father and Master of all, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ said, "Unless you are born again you will not enter into the Kingdom of heaven."

Jesus does NOT teach the necessity of baptism for salvation, otherwise He would have said so. If that were so, then Jesus would be teaching a heresy called "baptismal regeneration"; and that would be contrary to what happened at His baptism by John. John recognized Him as the Son of God before the baptism, calling Jesus "The Lamb slain before the foundation of the Earth"

You can interpret this scripture any way you want, but if you don’t interpret this scripture to mean that Baptism is essential, you are in disagreement with the Christians of the first century and many subsequent centuries.

Please read this from John 1:

John 1:25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?...
29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me....
​

There is no way that this will support any Mormon teaching about their jesus christ and baptism.

Again, you disagree here with the Christians of the first thousand plus years and many still today.

 

[By Grace]

First of all, could you please give me a reference where the Book of Mormon discusses Jesus being exalted through eternal progression? In the dozens of times I have read it I have never come across this teaching in the BofM.

I never said that iit was in the BoM.
So let's cut to the chase, and then I will tell you to go look at D&C 132:37

Of course you want me tp look in a place where we BOTH know that it is not located. and pursue rabbit trails that you are creating.

That is not dealing with the issue, but attempting to "prove me wrong" by raising irrelevant data
I see the trap you are preparing for me to step in, and I won't go there,

Second, you say nothing in the BofM can be supported by the Bible, so here are some verses from the BofM that describe Jesus in the ways I think Evangelicals would say agrees with the Bible.

Due to the Mormon doctrine of exaltation, the jesus you guys mention in your books (not just the BoM) is tainted by "convertible language,: which you superimpose your LDS meanings on your jesus in an effort to confuse others, and make it appear that you guys believe in Jesus Christ, as mentioned in the NT alone.

Normally I refuse to comment on LDS verses, but this must not be pAassed up because it is such a poignant example of what I posted above.
1Nephi 11:18-21 talks about the Son of the Eternal Father being born of a virgin, Here is ANOTHER trap that you are attempting to lay for me, and it uses "convertible language" again. (sigh) The virgin Mary had her hymen perforated at the birth of Jesus; your LDS version makes her a whore who copulated with your version of "the Eternal Father".

Do these ideas conflict with your interpretation of what is taught in the Bible?

For the reasons stated above, the answer is a resounding yes.

It was not the Apostle’s Creed you referred to.

After having posts deleted here due to violations of the tos, you dare to tempt me into violate them??? Surely this is called trolling, which is also against the tos.

By Grace said: ↑
Not quite so. What you did was the same thing as you said above can be understood in a way... and you have manipulated the one verse to make it say what you wish it said...

Yet that is exactly what you keep attempting to do. You of course believe I have done the same, so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree here.

Here i caught you in a manipulation of words in order to skew a plain teaching into Mormonism. The fact that you are attempting to appear "to be just like Christians" is plainly bearing false witness. Shall I trot out the many sayings of JS and BY where they hated the Christian Church. Shall I also trot out the instigating rhetoric of BY which directly led to the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Here is one example of many from the 2nd century church father Irenaeus in his famous First Apology (written about 155 AD). In this document he has the following to say about Baptism by water:
Those who are persuaded and believe that the things we teach and say are true, and promise that they can live accordingly, are instructed to pray and beseech God with fasting for the remission of their past sins, while we pray and fast along with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are reborn by the same manner of rebirth by which we ourselves were reborn; for they are then washed in the water in the name of God the Father and Master of all, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ said, "Unless you are born again you will not enter into the Kingdom of heaven

."

Ireneus was a Bishop, He did not write Scripture
Second he clearly states that being born from above comes first, THEN comes Baptism.
Besides I am wondering why you are quoting the Early Church Fathers when you totally reject them, and the creeds? Seems as if you are using a double standard here.

By Grace said: ↑
Jesus does NOT teach the necessity of baptism for salvation, otherwise He would have said so. If that were so, then Jesus would be teaching a heresy called "baptismal regeneration"; and that would be contrary to what happened at His baptism by John. John recognized Him as the Son of God before the baptism, calling Jesus "The Lamb slain before the foundation of the Earth"

You can interpret this scripture any way you want, but if you don’t interpret this scripture to mean that Baptism is essential, you are in disagreement with the Christians of the first century and many subsequent centuries.

It is not a matter of "interpretation" as you suggest; instead it is merely reading the plain words of Jesus in context.

 

[proveallthings]

I never said that iit was in the BoM.
So let's cut to the chase, and then I will tell you to go look at D&C 132:37

Of course you want me tp look in a place where we BOTH know that it is not located. and pursue rabbit trails that you are creating.

That is not dealing with the issue, but attempting to "prove me wrong" by raising irrelevant data
I see the trap you are preparing for me to step in, and I won't go there,

By Grace, I am not trying to set any traps for you. The reason it is important for me to point out where you are quoting things from the wrong Mormon sources is that by continually doing it, you show that you are simply repeating commentary from critics of the church instead of learning from the source yourself. You keep proving my point that what you believe about Mormonism is based, not on your own research, but relying on the extremely biased conclusions of others’ research. I keep hoping that you will search out these things on your own, instead of relying so much on the opinions of others. To me, that is the main issue.

Normally I refuse to comment on LDS verses, but this must not be pAassed up because it is such a poignant example of what I posted above.
1Nephi 11:18-21 talks about the Son of the Eternal Father being born of a virgin, Here is ANOTHER trap that you are attempting to lay for me, and it uses "convertible language" again. (sigh) The virgin Mary had her hymen perforated at the birth of Jesus; your LDS version makes her a whore who copulated with your version of "the Eternal Father".

There are no statements by any Mormon leader that has ever come close to using such language to describe the sacred creation of the mortal Christ. The only official teaching of the church about this conception can be said just as well by simply quoting Luke 1:35. Any more detail is no more than speculation as to the specifics of how that could happen. Again, you have swallowed hook line and sinker what critics want you to believe about what Mormons teach.

After having posts deleted here due to violations of the tos, you dare to tempt me into violate them??? Surely this is called trolling, which is also against the tos.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Here i caught you in a manipulation of words in order to skew a plain teaching into Mormonism. The fact that you are attempting to appear "to be just like Christians" is plainly bearing false witness. Shall I trot out the many sayings of JS and BY where they hated the Christian Church. Shall I also trot out the instigating rhetoric of BY which directly led to the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

The problem here is that you have believed those who want to discredit the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when they make claims about what they want you to believe are the plain teachings of Mormonism. Since you already believe their slander without question, when an actual sincere Mormon tells you what they really believe, you decide they must be skewing their belief just to be more popular. I’m not trying to persuade you to be a Mormon. I am only trying to persuade you to consider the possibility that Mormons don’t lie to you about what they believe.

Ireneus was a Bishop, He did not write Scripture
Second he clearly states that being born from above comes first, THEN comes Baptism.
Besides I am wondering why you are quoting the Early Church Fathers when you totally reject them, and the creeds? Seems as if you are using a double standard here.

You forget this all started with my quoting a scripture, John 3:5, and you claimed that I had misinterpreted it. I claimed that your interpretation of that scripture was in disagreement with the Christians of the first several centuries of the Christian era, who agree with mine. So far you have not provided any quote that would counter that claim. Instead you demanded that I show an example. I showed you the example, but instead of admitting I was right, you ask why I would quote it instead of scripture. Then you say I am showing a double standard to distract from the fact that I just exposed your double standard. You are the one who values the creeds developed by the early Christian Fathers as equal in authority with scripture, not me. So I show you where those same Christian Fathers agree with my interpretation of a scripture in opposition to yours and you say it doesn’t count because it isn’t scripture? Talk about a double standard.

I have never said that I disagree with everything the early fathers wrote. I never said I reject all that is in the creeds. I believe in most of what is said in the creeds and even all of some of them. I have only pointed out the contradiction in your belief in the authority of such creeds while at the same time you claim that the Bible is all we need.

I am still scratching my head about what you commented about the quote, saying he clearly states that being born from above comes first. There is nothing in that quote that says anything of the sort and even if it did, it would not change the clear teaching that water baptism is a rebirth required to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

It is not a matter of "interpretation" as you suggest; instead it is merely reading the plain words of Jesus in context.

So the Christian writers of the first several centuries can’t read the plain words of Jesus, but you can?