The Mormon Belief of Deification

[proveallthings]

In another thread Mike said: “So, your reason that Mormonism is preferred among all Christians is the dividing line - Mormons believe they have the capability to be "like God" in that we can aspire to the heights of the heavens and become 'gods' ourselves. This is significant to you. Christians believe in eternity with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit when we will glorify the Lord, and not be glorified. As Christians, we aspire to be humble, but very thankful to our Lord. I have no interest in anyone ever referring to me as "Lord".â€

So my question is: Does the Mormon belief that they can become like God only encourage one to be arrogant, not humble, ungrateful or prideful, as Mike infers? Or, is it more likely it inspire one to be more Christ-like? What are your thoughts?

 

[Jake]

Just for clarification, they believe, not that they will be like god, but that they will become gods and rule over planets. According to them, God has limited power upon earth and He needs men in order to establish His full potential. The men's goal is to reach "melchizedek priesthood", explained here: (http://www.mormonwiki.com/Priesthood),

The priesthood is the power and authority of God. God created the heavens and the earth by His priesthood power. By this power the universe is kept in perfect order. Through this power He accomplishes His work and glory, which is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Pearl of Great Price, Moses 1:39).
Our Heavenly Father shares His priesthood power in a limited way with worthy male members of the Mormon Church. The priesthood enables them to act in the name of Jesus Christ to help bring about the salvation of the human family. Through it, they can be authorized to preach the gospel, administer the ordinances of salvation, and govern God’s kingdom on earth. Men are ordained to the priesthood through the laying on of hands by worthy priesthood holders. As the Apostle Paul taught, "And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." (Hebrews 5:4)
Priesthood holders are divided into bodies called quorums. Through the quorums of the priesthood, men and boys strengthen each other and organize themselves to be of service in the neighborhoods and communities in which they live. Women and girls, though not receiving the priesthood, have equally important roles and responsibilities in carrying out the purposes of our loving Heavenly Father here on earth. They are entitled to all of the blessings of the priesthood.
They will fight tooth and nail to tell you they want to conform to Christ, but their christ is not the same as Christ. They do not believe the Bible is accurate, it has been changed too many times for it to be trustworthy, so for them to say they want to conform to Christ, they don't believe Christ in the first place and they do not know what they are supposed to be conforming to.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

In another thread Mike said: “So, your reason that Mormonism is preferred among all Christians is the dividing line - Mormons believe they have the capability to be "like God" in that we can aspire to the heights of the heavens and become 'gods' ourselves. This is significant to you. Christians believe in eternity with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit when we will glorify the Lord, and not be glorified. As Christians, we aspire to be humble, but very thankful to our Lord. I have no interest in anyone ever referring to me as "Lord".â€

So my question is: Does the Mormon belief that they can become like God only encourage one to be arrogant, not humble, ungrateful or prideful, as Mike infers? Or, is it more likely it inspire one to be more Christ-like? What are your thoughts?

Hi proverealallthings,

As a former Mormon and now Christian I think I can answer this question. While Mormon theology certainly teaches that those through temple marriage, baptism, faith, good works and enduring to the end can attain to godhood. This is not a doctrine that is as emphasized nowadays as it used to be, press on the subject with a Mormon and you'll likely find that they don't have too much to say on it. Some of the earlier prophets pressed in on it a lot more than they do today.

I'd say this particular belief doesn't add to their arrogance or ungratefulness, you'd be surprised what beliefs can or won't actually lead to arrogance. Take Calvinism for example, this belief is supposed to rip any right to boast out of the person, yet in my experience they can be some of the most arrogant abrasive people you can meet. This is not true for all of course, but I find what ultimately leads towards arrogance in all kinds of people is a belief that THEY are the one's who have it all figured out and everyone else is just deceived, therefore they look down their noses to the rest of the world.

Jesus came with truth AND grace and we as followers of Christ ought to do the same.. to speak the truth in love.

On a second note, it seems in order to oppose the Mormonism's position of exaltation you are ignoring what Scripture teaches. Scripture does indeed say that we will be glorified (Romans 8:30) and that when we see Jesus we will be like him and we are with him co-heirs of the inheritance.. the new creation. That we will share in the divine nature. While we know this doesn't mean that we will not be Gods, as God said neither will there be any more gods formed after him or before him. Yet we understand that the future glorious state that he has for us far surpasses all we can imagine. Let's protect the sacred teachings of Scripture and not downplay it's clear teaching even in the face of distortion.

Blessing in Christ,
Servant of Jesus

 

[proveallthings]

δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ, I like your explanation here. Well done. You did the difficult job of finding areas of agreement without compromising your own belief. I like that.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ, I like your explanation here. Well done. You did the difficult job of finding areas of agreement without compromising your own belief. I like that.

Thank you for your gracious response, may God bless you brother! (or sister.. though technically we are all brothers in Christ )

 

[Jake]

When any one or group believes they have all truth, they can not help but be arrogant.

 

[proveallthings]

When any one or group believes they have all truth, they can not help but be arrogant.

I don't think I know any group of Humans that actually believe that they are in possession of all truth. Do You?

 

[Jake]

I don't think I know any group of Humans that actually believe that they are in possession of all truth. Do You?

Absolutely, have you ever met an orthodox? As in Eastern?

My brother is a Mormon, they believe they have additional truth that we do not possess or believe so they either feel sorry for you or they are arrogant.

Mormons do believe they will become their own gods, the other writing in this thread may have belonged to a mellow ward, but the one here discusses these things outwardly and often.

All of us with a new nature already are partakers of the divine nature, we are participating with Christ. We are the Body and Christ is the head, as you know, they believe they will be gods apart from it.

 

[proveallthings]

Jake, thanks for sharing your perspective. It is enlightening to become aware of what others’ perceive about what I believe. You didn’t really answer my question, but I do appreciate your comments.

Just for clarification, they believe, not that they will be like god, but that they will become gods and rule over planets.

Actually Jake, based on my 57 years of experience, the emphasis is not at all about becoming a god, but all about becoming like God. Maybe it is just my perception, but I am not aware of any official source that encourages ruling over planets more than just acquiring God’s attributes. I would like to know your source for the idea that Mormons emphasize becoming gods to rule over planets more than just becoming like God.

According to them, God has limited power upon earth and He needs men in order to establish His full potential.

This is a very interesting and thought provoking statement. The part about God having limited power is definitely not Mormon doctrine and I wonder how you came to that conclusion. But the idea that he needs men to reach His full potential appears to be a conclusion loosely based on the scripture which teaches that God’s work and glory are the immortality and eternal life of man. I’m sure you will never find any official Mormon source teach that God needs any man or men to reach His potential, but I can see how someone trying to build a case against the teachings of Mormonism could come to such a conclusion.

Your conclusion assumes that Mormons believe that God had not reached his full potential when He decided to create us and this earth. That infers that He is less than perfect, omnipotent or omniscient and therefore not fully God. That is not at all what the church has ever taught. What you are saying here is a clever distortion of Mormon doctrine, although likely an innocent one.

The same argument could be used toward any belief in a God who is actively involved in an ongoing process of creating things. It is the same as saying that if God decides to do anything, up to that point He had not reached His full potential. If God has the potential to create more things, then He has not yet reached His potential because He has not yet created those things. Actually then, if you say that He has reached His full potential, you are putting limits on God. If God is truly eternal, it is impossible for Him to ever reach His full potential.

Mormons don’t see it that way at all. We see God’s full potential as His ability to choose to do whatever He wants. We believe He chooses to make the immortality and eternal life of man His work and His glory. We believe that as God, He chose that activity eons before “the beginning†of this world.

They will fight tooth and nail to tell you they want to conform to Christ, but their christ is not the same as Christ.

In the context of becoming like Christ, I wonder how you understand the Mormons’ view of Christ’s attributes to be different from yours. Could you please explain?

They do not believe the Bible is accurate, it has been changed too many times for it to be trustworthy, so for them to say they want to conform to Christ, they don't believe Christ in the first place and they do not know what they are supposed to be conforming to.

This is a very interesting group of statements. Speaking from my perspective as a Mormon, we Mormons actually perceive that we believe in the accuracy of the Bible as much or more than most Evangelicals.

I would like to know if you have a quote from any Mormon authority that says we don’t believe the Bible to be trustworthy. Could you share with me where you learned something so opposite from what I have been taught all my life?

Your last statement here, that Mormons don’t believe in Christ and don’t know what they are supposed to be conforming to, is very puzzling. So are you saying that Mormons are unsure of what Christ’s attributes are and therefore unsure about how to become more like Him? Do you have any authoritative quote from Mormon sources that back up your claim here, or is this just your own conclusion?

 

[proveallthings]

Absolutely, have you ever met an orthodox? As in Eastern?

I have discussed religion with Eastern Orthodox people several years ago. I didn't detect any more arrogance with them than I have with many Evangelicals or even Mormons. I certainly didn't get the idea that they believed they were in possession of all truth.

My brother is a Mormon, they believe they have additional truth that we do not possess or believe so they either feel sorry for you or they are arrogant.

And don't you believe that you have truth that your brother doesn't have? Don't you feel the same way toward him? Why his he any different than you?
The idea that people in any group, religious or otherwise, can be arrogant is an obvious fact of life. Arrogance is usually the result of insecurity in my experience. People in any belief system can have areas within their set of beliefs that they are not as confident in. This can be because of lack of conviction or lack of knowledge, or understanding.

Actually, now that I think about it, a person who claims to know something that someone else doesn't and wants to share it, is not necessarily arrogant. He may just be excited to share something that he has benefitted from. The true sign of arrogance is when the other person gets defensive and feels threatened by the new information.

Both Brigham and Joseph emphasized that they sought truth from any source they could, even from the books of the world. Brigham said he didn't care where truth came from, he just wanted it. They and those who succeeded them have always taught to gain knowledge from the best books of the world. Does this sound like people who thought they knew all truth already?

This is actually off topic from the question I originally posed, however.

All of us with a new nature already are partakers of the divine nature, we are participating with Christ. We are the Body and Christ is the head, as you know, they believe they will be gods apart from it.

Actually, this is exactly the oposite of what Mormons believe. I'm glad you brought this up. We believe that by being partakers of Christ's divine nature we become more like him little by little. This is a very long process, but can only be achieved by total reliance on the merits of Christ within the body of Christ. Mormons believe that anything apart from this is going the oposite direction from godhood.

Remember that the original question is whether the belief of the possibility of becoming like God is more likely to persuade one to be arrogant, less humble and ungrateful, or is it more likely to persuade one to be more Christ-like.

 

[Jake]

Jake, thanks for sharing your perspective. It is enlightening to become aware of what others’ perceive about what I believe. You didn’t really answer my question, but I do appreciate your comments.

This is what I have been taught by other Mormons. To be honest, I had NO idea you were a Mormon, I will provide writings from various Mormon literature and please comment, however many of what I learned was from other Mormons. Thanks.

Actually Jake, based on my 57 years of experience,the emphasis is not at all about becoming a god, but all about becoming like God. Maybe it is just my perception, but I am not aware of any official source that encourages ruling over planets more than just acquiring God’s attributes. I would like to know your source for the idea that Mormons emphasize becoming gods to rule over planets more than just becoming like God.

Here are written excerpts from Mormon writings regarding "becoming gods and ruling over planets"

There are many gods, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163).

After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-347, 354.)

"Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them," (D&C 132:20).
From Joseph Smith himself:
man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fullness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring.†Doctrines of the Gospel, Student Manual, 1986; also see Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1955, v. 2, p. 48

"Then will they become Gods...they will never cease to increase and to multiply, worlds without end. When they receive their crowns, their dominions, they then will be prepared to frame earths like unto ours and to people them in the same manner as we have been brought forth by our parents, by our Father and God†Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 17:143

Journal of Discourses Volume 6 page 275 --Brigham Young ""After men have got their exaltations and their crowns -- have become Gods, even the sons of God -- are made Kings of kings and Lords of lords, they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit; and that is the first of their operations with regard to organizing a world. **Power is then given to them to organize the elements, and then commence the organization of tabernacles**. How can they do it? Have they to go to that earth? Yes, an Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation, and they will go into the garden, and continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corporeal world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children.""




"As our Father and God begat us, sons and daughters, so will we rise immortal, males and females, and beget children, and, in our turn, form and create worlds, and send forth our spirit children to inherit those worlds, the same as we were sent here, and thus will the works of God continue, and not only God himself, and His Son Jesus Christ have the power of endless lives, but all of His redeemed offspring."
Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses 14:242

This is a very interesting and thought provoking statement. The part about God having limited power is definitely not Mormon doctrine and I wonder how you came to that conclusion. But the idea that he needs men to reach His full potential appears to be a conclusion loosely based on the scripture which teaches that God’s work and glory are the immortality and eternal life of man. I’m sure you will never find any official Mormon source teach that God needs any man or men to reach His potential, but I can see how someone trying to build a case against the teachings of Mormonism could come to such a conclusion.

Your conclusion assumes that Mormons believe that God had not reached his full potential when He decided to create us and this earth. That infers that He is less than perfect, omnipotent or omniscient and therefore not fully God. That is not at all what the church has ever taught. What you are saying here is a clever distortion of Mormon doctrine, although likely an innocent one.

The same argument could be used toward any belief in a God who is actively involved in an ongoing process of creating things. It is the same as saying that if God decides to do anything, up to that point He had not reached His full potential. If God has the potential to create more things, then He has not yet reached His potential because He has not yet created those things. Actually then, if you say that He has reached His full potential, you are putting limits on God. If God is truly eternal, it is impossible for Him to ever reach His full potential.

Mormons don’t see it that way at all. We see God’s full potential as His ability to choose to do whatever He wants. We believe He chooses to make the immortality and eternal life of man His work and His glory. We believe that as God, He chose that activity eons before “the beginning†of this world.

Would you agree with the following statement or not regarding God?
He is not uniquely self-existent, transcendent, or eternal. Neither is he truly the creator of all things, for he is one among potentially billions of Gods, and does not even have the ability to create matter. As BYU professor David Paulson once put it, "God does not have absolute power... but rather the power to maximally utilize natural laws to bring about His purposes."

In the context of becoming like Christ, I wonder how you understand the Mormons’ view of Christ’s attributes to be different from yours. Could you please explain?

Yes, I believe it is a different Christ because of the following Mormon doctrine:
The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus "in the morning of pre-existence," (Mormon Doctrine, p. 192).

Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163).

A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus' plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to "deny men their agency and to dethrone god," (Mormon Doctrine, p. 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 8).

This is a very interesting group of statements. Speaking from my perspective as a Mormon, we Mormons actually perceive that we believe in the accuracy of the Bible as much or more than most Evangelicals.

I would like to know if you have a quote from any Mormon authority that says we don’t believe the Bible to be trustworthy. Could you share with me where you learned something so opposite from what I have been taught all my life?

Are you saying the Book of Mormon is NOT as authoritative as the Bible?
The Bible is better than the Book of Mormon when it comes to authoritative?

I just want to make sure I don't misunderstand your stance on the Bible in comparison to the Book of Mormon.

Because your doctrine says this:

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. . ." (8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church).

"Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God," (1 Nephi 13:28).

Your last statement here, that Mormons don’t believe in Christ and don’t know what they are supposed to be conforming to, is very puzzling. So are you saying that Mormons are unsure of what Christ’s attributes are and therefore unsure about how to become more like Him? Do you have any authoritative quote from Mormon sources that back up your claim here, or is this just your own conclusion?

I answered this in part earlier, but the following from the Mormon doctrine will sum it up, it is not the same Christ.

The first spirit to be born in heaven was Jesus, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 129).

Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163; Gospel Through the Ages, p. 15).

Jesus' sacrifice was not able to cleanse us from all our sins, (murder and repeated adultery are exceptions), (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, 1856, p. 247)."Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38).

"The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115)."Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers," (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p. 547).

"Christ Not Begotten of Holy Ghost ...Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God!" (Doctrines of Salvation, by Joseph Fielding Smith, 1954, 1:18).

"Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh..." (First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, 1916, "God the Father," compiled by Gordon Allred, p. 150).

 

[Jake]

I have discussed religion with Eastern Orthodox people several years ago. I didn't detect any more arrogance with them than I have with many Evangelicals or even Mormons. I certainly didn't get the idea that they believed they were in possession of all truth.

They believe they possess the closest rituals and truth straight from the apostles, but then so do the Catholics and so do the Mormons. A person who truly believes they possess all the truth - they ARE arrogant, because no one does hold all the truth. It's a sense of pride for them.

And don't you believe that you have truth that your brother doesn't have?

Yes......it would be that he is wrong. ;)

Don't you feel the same way toward him? Why his he any different than you?
The idea that people in any group, religious or otherwise, can be arrogant is an obvious fact of life. Arrogance is usually the result of insecurity in my experience. People in any belief system can have areas within their set of beliefs that they are not as confident in. This can be because of lack of conviction or lack of knowledge, or understanding.

It is different because he does not believe the Bible is accurate or holds any sort of integrity. He would rather use the D&C, the Book of Mormon, all the other writings rather than the Bible.

Actually, now that I think about it, a person who claims to know something that someone else doesn't and wants to share it, is not necessarily arrogant. He may just be excited to share something that he has benefitted from. The true sign of arrogance is when the other person gets defensive and feels threatened by the new information.

A person can listen to what the other person has to say, when the other person attempts to defend their own belief, however, that in itself is not arrogant. You're probably right though, if the person gets really defensive and feels threatened that might be arrogance.

Both Brigham and Joseph emphasized that they sought truth from any source they could, even from the books of the world. Brigham said he didn't care where truth came from, he just wanted it. They and those who succeeded them have always taught to gain knowledge from the best books of the world. Does this sound like people who thought they knew all truth already?

It is a problem when people are seeking truth from whomever and from whatever, this is when you have the co-existence of world religions all dumped into one pile and people believe whatever they want.

The Bible IS a source of Truth, it is a tool that points us to Christ, we then follow the Spirit, led by His Spirit and He is the only One who possesses absolute Truth.

Actually, this is exactly the oposite of what Mormons believe. I'm glad you brought this up. We believe that by being partakers of Christ's divine nature we become more like him little by little. This is a very long process, but can only be achieved by total reliance on the merits of Christ within the body of Christ. Mormons believe that anything apart from this is going the oposite direction from godhood.

I have laid out information and writings from Mormonism that explains why I do not believe it is the same Jesus.

Remember that the original question is whether the belief of the possibility of becoming like God is more likely to persuade one to be arrogant, less humble and ungrateful, or is it more likely to persuade one to be more Christ-like.

Ephesians 4:13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

It's our goal to transform to Christ, the process should cause us to completely die to ourselves, and offer ourselves as living sacrifices, acceptable to God.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Jake, thanks for sharing your perspective. It is enlightening to become aware of what others’ perceive about what I believe. You didn’t really answer my question, but I do appreciate your comments.

Actually Jake, based on my 57 years of experience, the emphasis is not at all about becoming a god, but all about becoming like God. Maybe it is just my perception, but I am not aware of any official source that encourages ruling over planets more than just acquiring God’s attributes. I would like to know your source for the idea that Mormons emphasize becoming gods to rule over planets more than just becoming like God.

Hi proveallthings,

As I mentioned before I am a former Mormon and I take issue with what you're saying here. While I certainly think the modern LDS church has downplayed the doctrine of exaltation it clearly is a distinctly Mormon belief and does in fact have the people reaching exaltation becoming and operating like God. Not just acquiring his attributes. This is proven by the fact that one must have a temple marriage, the purpose of becoming a god is so that you might have spirit children like you believe God has, so that they might populate a world of your own. While there is great ambiguity within the LDS church as to what this ultimately looks like and operates that much is certainly clear as was made clear to me from a young age.

This is a very interesting and thought provoking statement. The part about God having limited power is definitely not Mormon doctrine and I wonder how you came to that conclusion.

Not sure how familiar you are with Wilford Woodruff's teachings.. here is a quote for you to look at?

"God himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 120).

This is a quote from Wilford Woodruff claiming that God is progressing in knowledge, power and dominion. If God is indeed progressing he is at the present time LIMITED in power as his power would not be LIMITLESS.

But the idea that he needs men to reach His full potential appears to be a conclusion loosely based on the scripture which teaches that God’s work and glory are the immortality and eternal life of man. I’m sure you will never find any official Mormon source teach that God needs any man or men to reach His potential, but I can see how someone trying to build a case against the teachings of Mormonism could come to such a conclusion.

I agree that I am not aware of any Mormon teaching on God being dependent on man to reach his full potential.

Your conclusion assumes that Mormons believe that God had not reached his full potential when He decided to create us and this earth. That infers that He is less than perfect, omnipotent or omniscient and therefore not fully God. That is not at all what the church has ever taught. What you are saying here is a clever distortion of Mormon doctrine, although likely an innocent one.

As you will note from my above quote, if God is indeed progressing, if that one is not clear enough here is another.

“According to [some men’s] theory, God can progress no further in knowledge and power, but the God that I serve is progressing eternally, and so are his children.” Brigham Young

This does not preclude the fact that the BoM contradicts this theory as does other prophets but that then creates an even greater problem for Mormons.

The same argument could be used toward any belief in a God who is actively involved in an ongoing process of creating things. It is the same as saying that if God decides to do anything, up to that point He had not reached His full potential. If God has the potential to create more things, then He has not yet reached His potential because He has not yet created those things. Actually then, if you say that He has reached His full potential, you are putting limits on God. If God is truly eternal, it is impossible for Him to ever reach His full potential.

Talking about an eternal and infinite God reaching his potential does not make any sense. God's potential is not realized with creating more and more.. what God has created does not add to his glory or potential but is a reflection of what is innately in him.

Mormons don’t see it that way at all. We see God’s full potential as His ability to choose to do whatever He wants. We believe He chooses to make the immortality and eternal life of man His work and His glory. We believe that as God, He chose that activity eons before “the beginning” of this world.

God acts in accordance with his character, God cannot lie and does not change therefore he cannot chose to lie or chose to change as that is foreign to his character.

In the context of becoming like Christ, I wonder how you understand the Mormons’ view of Christ’s attributes to be different from yours. Could you please explain?

I think he is referring to the stark differences Christians believe about Jesus versus Mormon doctrine. Mormons believe that Jesus is not eternally God and is indeed a created being born from the Father who was the brother of Lucifer in the pre-existence. This is quite different from what the Bible teaches.

Let me illustrate why this is important:

Say I come up to you and tell you that you have to meet my girlfriend.. she is amazingly beautiful with red hair.. brown eyes.. cute little freckles... and about 5'1"... If I were to describe her in this way and then you discovered when you met her that she looks NOTHING like that, and actually had blonde hair.. green eyes.. no freckles.. and was 5'5".. you'd say I was describing an entirely different person.

Such is the case here.

This is a very interesting group of statements. Speaking from my perspective as a Mormon, we Mormons actually perceive that we believe in the accuracy of the Bible as much or more than most Evangelicals.

This I absolutely know is not true, and while I am aware there is some major differences within the LDS church on certain issues. Almost every in depth discussion I have with Mormons on the Bible usually ends with them challenging the accuracy of the Bible. I can quote MANY different leaders throughout LDS history who have cast doubt on the transmission of the Bible and it's current accuracy.

I would like to know if you have a quote from any Mormon authority that says we don’t believe the Bible to be trustworthy. Could you share with me where you learned something so opposite from what I have been taught all my life?

First of all before I offer my quotes, let me reason with you a moment on the Joesph Smith translation. He added words to the Bible found in NONE of the Greek manuscripts (I know this because I can read the Greek NT and LXX) and if he did this then he felt that the Bible was incomplete and indeed inaccurate. If you read this translation and deem it authoritative then you agree that the Bible as far as it has been preserved to today is in some ways corrupted.

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. Article 8

I have found that this quote is not taken to mean as far as it is translated correctly from the Greek and Hebrew (I would agree with that) but Mormons use this article almost to mean as far as it has been transmitted correctly throughout time. Many will point back to the council of Nicaea and say that it was changed during the proceedings, which is utterly false as the council was to address the heresy of Arianism and the deity of Christ.

And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou sees the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away. 1 Nephi 13:26

The BoM teaches that the apostate church has taken away many covenants of the Lord, this seems to be a direct address the transmission of the Bible as that is what is being addressed in the context.

"The New Testament must be accepted for what it claims to be; and though, perhaps, many precious parts have been suppressed or lost, while some corruptions of the texts may have crept in, and errors have been inadvertently introduced through the incapacity of translators, the volume as a whole must be admitted as authentic and credible, and as an essential part of the Holy Scriptures." (James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith p. 248)

Quoting this next one from the direct source material on paper..

"That portion of the writings in the old world which, in the providences of the Almighty, has been handed down from age to age until modern times is called the Bible. These writings in their original form were perfect scripture; they were the mind and will of the Lord, his voice to his chosen people and to all who would hear it. (D.&C. 68:4) That they have not come down to us in their perfect form is well know in the Church and by all reputable scholars. Only a few fanatics among the sects of Christendom close their eyes to reality and profess to believe in what they call verbal revelation, that is, that every word and syllable in some version or other of the Bible is the exact word spoken by Deity." (He then quotes the James E. Talmage who I quoted above) (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Second Edition p.82)

I have more if you wish to dispute these.

Your last statement here, that Mormons don’t believe in Christ and don’t know what they are supposed to be conforming to, is very puzzling. So are you saying that Mormons are unsure of what Christ’s attributes are and therefore unsure about how to become more like Him? Do you have any authoritative quote from Mormon sources that back up your claim here, or is this just your own conclusion?

This would be his belief that those who are of the LDS Church do not follow this historical Jesus of Nazareth and are thus part of an aberrant sect of Christianity and teach destructive heresies that distort the gospel and thus prove themselves to be anathema.

My issues with Mormonism is that their interpretation of the Bible is just wholly inconsistent with what is actually spoken and I have never seen a single good Mormon exegete. The fact that on p. 83 of Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie says this: "When the Bible is read under the guidance of the Spirit, and in harmony with many latter-day revelations which interpret and make plain its more mysterious parts, it becomes one of the most priceless volumes known to man."

Mormons take their Churches teaching and then superimpose them over the Bible and thus corrupt it's message from what is clearly spoken.

I speak plainly with you because I believe you to be in great peril and while it seems you believe yourself to be in the right, we must realize that what we believe as well as what we do is very important. If we bring a different gospel then the one presented in the Bible. Then that person according to Galatians 1:8-9 is accursed, which in the Greek means to be handed over to the wrath of God for destruction. We must not pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ, for it will prove our undoing.

I pray that your heart be open, and that the Lord let his light shine upon you to see the truth of the glory of God revealed in the true gospel of Jesus Christ found completely in the 66 canonical books known as the Bible.

Bless you,
Servant of Jesus

 

[proveallthings]

This is what I have been taught by other Mormons. To be honest, I had NO idea you were a Mormon, I will provide writings from various Mormon literature and please comment, however many of what I learned was from other Mormons. Thanks.

Jake,
Sorry, I forgot that some on this forum may not be aware that I am LDS. I didn’t want to mislead you. 

Here are written excerpts from Mormon writings regarding "becoming gods and ruling over planets"

I’m sorry for not being more clear about what I was saying. I am very aware of the teaching that we can be gods and even create and have stewardship over new planets which inhabit our children. That was not my point. What I was talking about was the emphasis. If you take into consideration all that is taught to Latter-day Saints the overwhelming emphasis is on becoming like God and acquiring His attributes more than the idea of being a god and ruling planets. The reason is that the only way we become a god is by being one with God.

Also, something you may not be aware of is what writings are considered official doctrine and which are not. Mormons are aware of the fact that apostles and prophets, modern and those in the Bible are and were not perfect. They have and had their own opinions of things and say and said things that the church does not accept as official doctrine. Things they say or said that is accepted as official doctrine often becomes scripture for future generations. Almost all of what we have of what the early apostles wrote and said are what was accepted as official scripture hundreds of years ago, but even in those scriptures we find examples of how they had their disagreements and imperfections.

Much of what modern apostles and prophets have stated and written, which is not official doctrine is still available for us to read, because it is so much more recent. Examples of writings that can be profitable, but not official doctrine are books like the Journal of Discourses and Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine. Actually, when McConkie published Mormon Doctrine, he was reprimanded by the other leaders because its name inferred something official. He even went back and made several changes, but it was still not an official church publication. It is simply some very informed opinions of one man who had a high office in the church.

I enjoy Mormon Doctrine and the Journal of Discourses, but realize when I study them that it is just good material for teaching certain principles as long as what I find is in line with current prophetic teachings. And it usually is. You will find with the Journal of Discourses that most members of the church are very unfamiliar with their contents. I actually see more quotes from the Journal of Discourses from anti-Mormon writings than I do from more current church leaders.

Usually what seems to be a contradiction with current teachings or the Bible is simply the way they explained things back in the 1800s. Some are actually misquotes. Remember they had no way of recording speeches or discourses in those days. Everything had to be written down in real time or by memory. There are huge possibilities for human error by those methods when compared to today’s standards.

There are many gods, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163). (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-347, 354.)

If you want to know my explanation of the doctrine of many gods and becoming a god, a good place to go is in the one-on-one debate forum, where Mike and I had an indepth discussion of the topic. The name of that thread is Mormonism & Christianity. Although it is somewhat related, it is not about the question I asked as the premise of this thread.

Would you agree with the following statement or not regarding God?
He is not uniquely self-existent, transcendent, or eternal. Neither is he truly the creator of all things, for he is one among potentially billions of Gods, and does not even have the ability to create matter. As BYU professor David Paulson once put it, "God does not have absolute power... but rather the power to maximally utilize natural laws to bring about His purposes."

This sounds very out of context and as such sounds strange and contradictory to the Bible and even official Mormon doctrine. I would like to see the source and check its context. I have never read any official Mormon statement that says anything like this. But even in context it may still sound strange to you. So consider this analogy:

Back when I was a young boy I learned about basic definitions in geometry, like the fact that a line is always perfectly straight for eternity in both directions. (We can compare my basic geometry book to the Bible.) Shortly after learning these definitions my friend, who had a brother in High School studying calculus (calculus can be compared in this analogy to some teachings of modern prophets), told me that he could prove to me that a line could actually curve and still be a line. I didn’t believe him at first. What he was saying was blasphemy to the religion of geometry. But the fact he had given me was very much out of context. Had I refused to consider the context because of the initial apparent contradiction, I would have rejected all the wonderful and beneficial principles of calculus. Later I learned that his statement wasn’t a contradiction at all, because I learned more of the context and the learning between the geometry book and the calculus book.

So don’t be too quick to judge the calculus book of the Doctrine and Covenants or other statements by modern apostles, just because they are presented by people trying to find fault in a way that is out of context in order to make it appear to be contradictory. None of the statements you have quoted contradict the Bible if you understand the complete context.

Yes, I believe it is a different Christ because of the following Mormon doctrine:
The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus "in the morning of pre-existence," (Mormon Doctrine, p. 192).

Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163).

A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus' plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to "deny men their agency and to dethrone god," (Mormon Doctrine, p. 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 8).

Notice where these quotes are coming from. They are out of context with the whole story and by themselves may sound blasphemous. But actually, even as they are, they do not contradict the Bible. But most importantly they do not address the question of Christ’s attributes. By attributes I mean His behavior and attitudes. How does the idea of Satan and Jesus being brothers have anything to do with Christ’s personal attributes? This is off topic again.

Are you saying the Book of Mormon is NOT as authoritative as the Bible?
The Bible is better than the Book of Mormon when it comes to authoritative?

What we believe about the Book of Mormon has nothing to do with whether the Bible is trustworthy or not.

I just want to make sure I don't misunderstand your stance on the Bible in comparison to the Book of Mormon.

Although this is a completely different topic, I will attempt to explain this briefly here.
First of all, what is important to remember is that this church uses the Bible as scripture in the same way it uses any other scripture. Modern apostles quote the Bible to teach principles in the same authoritative way they use modern scripture. The Book of Mormon does not trump the Bible any more than the Book of John trumps the Book of Matthew. In our view they do not conflict. I have never found a Book of Mormon scripture that contradicts any Bible scripture. It simply is not an issue.

But you want me to compare the two, so here we go. Any Bible scholar will admit there are flaws in the Bible. It was filtered to us through hundreds of years of uninspired scribes who were a part of a very corrupt organization. This is no secret. We have no way of knowing how much of the original Greek manuscripts we actually have today. The earliest complete manuscripts only date back as far as about 300 years after the originals were actually written. They are only hand written copies of copies of copies. There are many books that were revered as scriptures by the 1st and 2nd century Christians that are not contained in our current Bible. There are even books of scripture quoted by the Bible that the Bible does not contain. None of what I have said here is controversial among informed Bible scholars. It is a great miracle of God that what we have as our present day Bible is as pure as it is.

The Book of Mormon claims to have come to us in a completely different way. It has only been handled by special hand picked prophets of God. Mormon and Moroni, who were great prophets of God, completed the abridgement of the record of their people 1400 years ago. Their record was translated by the gift and power of God by the modern day prophet Joseph Smith. At least that is the claim. So if you believed the claims of both books, which would you choose as the most accurate? But you must remember that the Bible is accurate enough that this really does not come up as an issue.

Because your doctrine says this:
"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. . ." (8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church).

The LDS church has only used one official version of the Bible since its inception, the King James version. There were some verses that were clarified by Joseph Smith. That document is call the Joseph Smith version, but it only affects a small percentage of verses and is only used as a reference and really not used very often. In comparison to that, look at how many different translations of the Bible the rest of the Christian churches use. Some even have books that the others do not include. Why so many versions? Because each translation is an attempt to be a version that is translated more correctly. So the rest of the Christian world is also saying by their actions that they believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

"Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God," (1 Nephi 13:28).

Not many verses distant from this one it says that the Bible contains the fulness of the gospel. Mormons do not take this verse as an indication that the Bible is not trustworthy.

I answered this in part earlier, but the following from the Mormon doctrine will sum it up, it is not the same Christ.

The first spirit to be born in heaven was Jesus, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 129)....

None of the quotes you offer say anything about his personal attributes that we are trying to emulate. They are not pertinent to this discussion. I understand there are many things Mormons teach about Christ that are different than what you have been taught. That is not what this discussion is about. As far as I know, we are in agreement about what Christ's personal attributes are, meaning His qualities of personality and behavior. The types of things that are possible to emulate by us. He commanded us to be perfect as He is. What does that mean? I don't think it means that he wants us to have surgery to have a perfectly shaped nose or something. I'm talking about the example he set while here on earth living as a mortal. He said "follow me". How does the Mormon idea of deification affect how we do that? Look at the original question please. Was Mike's assumption accurate or is there a different possible result.

 

[Jake]

Hi proveallthings,
I am a little confused, because first you said this:

Actually Jake, based on my 57 years of experience, the emphasis is not at all about becoming a god, but all about becoming like God. Maybe it is just my perception, but I am not aware of any official source that encourages ruling over planets more than just acquiring God’s attributes. I would like to know your source for the idea that Mormons emphasize becoming gods to rule over planets more than just becoming like God.

now you say this:

I’m sorry for not being more clear about what I was saying. I am very aware of the teaching that we can be gods and even create and have stewardship over new planets which inhabit our children.

What you are attempting to do is turning the focus of the fact your doctrine does state the men's goal is to become a god and rule over a planet. This IS your doctrine and to avoid it is futile. I have already given the Mormon documentation showing your belief. Why do you want to avoid its discussion?

Also, something you may not be aware of is what writings are considered official doctrine and which are not. Mormons are aware of the fact that apostles and prophets, modern and those in the Bible are and were not perfect. They have and had their own opinions of things and say and said things that the church does not accept as official doctrine. Things they say or said that is accepted as official doctrine often becomes scripture for future generations. Almost all of what we have of what the early apostles wrote and said are what was accepted as official scripture hundreds of years ago, but even in those scriptures we find examples of how they had their disagreements and imperfections.

Much of what modern apostles and prophets have stated and written, which is not official doctrine is still available for us to read, because it is so much more recent. Examples of writings that can be profitable, but not official doctrine are books like the Journal of Discourses and Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine. Actually, when McConkie published Mormon Doctrine, he was reprimanded by the other leaders because its name inferred something official. He even went back and made several changes, but it was still not an official church publication. It is simply some very informed opinions of one man who had a high office in the church.

The above is not quit true either according to Mormon doctrine. In fact, recent prophets have more authority than dead prophets, including those in the Bible. In fact, LDS doctrine claims a word spoken from a Mormon prophet is if it were God speaking.
“Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith
the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith
the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded
them.

“But those who cry transgression do it because they are the
servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves.†(D&C
121:16–17.)



“We have a living prophet on the face of the earth
again... The prophets speak to us in the name of the Lord and in divine
plainness. It is our responsibility not only to listen but also to act upon His
word that we may claim the blessings of the ordinances and covenants of the
restored gospel.†Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Ensign, Jul 2008 © Intellectual Reserve,
Inc. All rights reserved.

When President Gordon B. Hinckley was a boy his
family followed President Joseph F. Smith’s council on holding Family Home
Evening. President Hinckley said, “Our love for brothers and sisters was
enhanced. Our love for the Lord was increased. An appreciation for simple
goodness grew in our hearts. These wonderful things came about because our
parents followed the council of the President of the Church.†Gordon B.
Hinckley, “Following a prophet,†Friend, Aug 2007 @Intellectual Reserve, Inc.
All rights reserved.
FHE: Follow the Prophet

The living prophet has the power of TNT. By that I mean "Todays
News Today." God's revelations to Adam did not instruct Noah how to build the
ark. Noah needed his own revelation. Therefore, the most important prophet, so
far as you and I are concerned, is the one living in our day and age to whom the
Lord is currently revealing His will for us. Therefore, the most important
reading we can do is any of the words of the prophet contained each week in the
Church Section of the Deseret News, and any words of the prophet contained each
month in our Church magazines. Our marching orders for each six months are found
in the general conference addresses, which are printed in the Ensign magazine.


I am so grateful that the current conference report is studied as part
of one of your religion classes--the course entitied "Teachings of the Living
Prophets," number 333. May I commend that class to you, and suggest that you get
a copy of the class manual at your bookstore, whether you're able to take the
class or not. The manual is entitled "Living Prophets for a Living Church."


Beware of those who would pit the dead prophets against the living
prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.
Ezra Taft
Benson, as cited in FOURTEEN FUNDAMENTALS IN FOLLOWING THE PROPHET, February 26,
1980


The LDS prophet stands between Mormons and God.

Leaders’ counsel. The
Lord speaks to us through His chosen leaders. The Savior taught this principle
when He said, “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, … whether by mine own
voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same†(D&C 1:38).
Personal Revelation - Ensign Sept. 1999 - ensign

None of the quotes you offer say anything about his personal attributes that we are trying to emulate. They are not pertinent to this discussion. I understand there are many things Mormons teach about Christ that are different than what you have been taught. That is not what this discussion is about. As far as I know, we are in agreement about what Christ's personal attributes are, meaning His qualities of personality and behavior. The types of things that are possible to emulate by us. He commanded us to be perfect as He is. What does that mean? I don't think it means that he wants us to have surgery to have a perfectly shaped nose or something. I'm talking about the example he set while here on earth living as a mortal. He said "follow me". How does the Mormon idea of deification affect how we do that? Look at the original question please. Was Mike's assumption accurate or is there a different possible result.

The phrases and words you use would make one believe you are attempting to emulate Christ in your own power, by your own strength.

It is no longer I, but Christ who lives in me, He is the One who is transforming me into Christ to His full measure - completely transformed. You can do nothing apart from Christ, it is all Him and none of you. We are dying to ourselves daily, picking up our cross and literally dying to self. As He increases, we decrease.

It is not simply "an example" - it is a transformation.

 

[proveallthings]

They believe they possess the closest rituals and truth straight from the apostles, but then so do the Catholics and so do the Mormons. A person who truly believes they possess all the truth - they ARE arrogant, because no one does hold all the truth. It's a sense of pride for them.

Believing one possesses the CLOSEST rituals and truth from the apostles is a lot different than saying you have all truth. And do not the Evangelicals believe they have the only correct interpretation of the word of God? I don’t see any distinction here for any of these groups to have a greater reason for arrogance because of assuming to have the most correct doctrine.

Yes......it would be that he is wrong. ;)

The winky face appears to indicate that you are just joking. So are you saying that you are open to the possibility that your brother could be right about some religious things and you wrong?

It is different because he does not believe the Bible is accurate or holds any sort of integrity. He would rather use the D&C, the Book of Mormon, all the other writings rather than the Bible.

Virtually every Mormon I know of prefers parts of the Bible over parts of modern scripture.
Has your brother actually told you that he believes that the Bible does not have any integrity? Has he told you that he would rather use all other latter-day scripture than the Bible? Are there not books of the Bible that you use more or treasure more than others? Why is that any different?

Both Brigham and Joseph emphasized that they sought truth from any source they could, even from the books of the world. Brigham said he didn't care where truth came from, he just wanted it. They and those who succeeded them have always taught to gain knowledge from the best books of the world. Does this sound like people who thought they knew all truth already?

It is a problem when people are seeking truth from whomever and from whatever, this is when you have the co-existence of world religions all dumped into one pile and people believe whatever they want.

Seeking truth from whatever source does not mean that you accept all the false information the other sources accept. It just means that you are confident enough in your relationship with God that you trust that He will guide you through it all as long as you continue to obey truth as well as you understand it. It also means that you believe that all people are loved by God equally, that you respect their perspective and accept the reality of your own subjectivity.
So do you now understand that Mormons do not believe they have all truth?

The Bible IS a source of Truth, it is a tool that points us to Christ, we then follow the Spirit, led by His Spirit and He is the only One who possesses absolute Truth.

I don’t disagree with any of this statement. I note that you say here that the Bible is A source of truth, not the only source.

Actually, this is exactly the oposite of what Mormons believe. I'm glad you brought this up. We believe that by being partakers of Christ's divine nature we become more like him little by little. This is a very long process, but can only be achieved by total reliance on the merits of Christ within the body of Christ. Mormons believe that anything apart from this is going the oposite direction from godhood.

I have laid out information and writings from Mormonism that explains why I do not believe it is the same Jesus.

You didn’t even respond to the comment you are quoting here. This is a response to your saying that Mormons believe they will be gods apart from participating in Christ’s divine nature as a part of the body of Christ. Do you acknowledge that you misunderstood what Mormons believe in this instance? If not, why?

Ephesians 4:13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
It's our goal to transform to Christ, the process should cause us to completely die to ourselves, and offer ourselves as living sacrifices, acceptable to God.

I’m glad we agree on what you say here, but it does not attempt to answer my original question.

 

[proveallthings]

While I certainly think the modern LDS church has downplayed the doctrine of exaltation it clearly is a distinctly Mormon belief and does in fact have the people reaching exaltation becoming and operating like God. Not just acquiring his attributes.

Doulos Iesou, Your comment here is based on a misread of my comment you are quoting. Please notice that I was talking about the EMPHASIS being more on becoming like God. I never even hinted that we do not teach that the result can be becoming a god. If you have any memory at all of the teachings in General Conference or the discussions in Sunday School and Priesthood Meetings, I’m sure you will agree that the EMPHASIS is much more on acquiring Christ’s attributes than being a god. That is what repentance is all about and it says several times in the D&C to “preach only repentance to this generationâ€.

This is proven by the fact that one must have a temple marriage, the purpose of becoming a god is so that you might have spirit children like you believe God has, so that they might populate a world of your own.

It is true that part of the temple marriage covenant talks about becoming gods together. But you are singling out one small part of what is taught in the temple. Again, the EMPHASIS is reminding us of the covenants we make with God and the importance of Christ’s role in everything.
The idea of having spiritual children and populating a world is not even mentioned in any temple ceremony. Please be careful not to misrepresent what goes on in the temple. I’m sure you want to avoid violating the 9th commandment.

Not sure how familiar you are with Wilford Woodruff's teachings.. here is a quote for you to look at?
"God himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 120).

A couple issues here. First of all, you need to be careful in quoting sources like the Journal of Discourses. Much of what is in there is not accurate, speculative or just not official doctrine of the church. You have to understand that these are just the result of live dictation of a talk given by a church leader. There was much room for error. Such statements as you have cited here are not church doctrine and even contradict church doctrine. Joseph Smith said just the opposite in Lectures on Faith. This quote is not taught in the church at all.

Second of all, even if this were church doctrine, it does not mean that God is limited in the context of anything that pertains to us. For example, does the fact that Michael Jordan didn’t know how to speak Japanese limit his ability as a basketball player? Of course not. Therefore, if God were increasing in knowledge in some area that is beyond our comprehension, that does not necessarily mean that he is limited in his ability to be our perfect God.

“According to [some men’s] theory, God can progress no further in knowledge and power, but the God that I serve is progressing eternally, and so are his children.†Brigham Young

This is another quote from The Journal of Discourses, so see my above explanation. I should say that the idea of God progressing in some incomprehensible way is something that some Mormons have believed. I know that it is not an official doctrine of the church, however. It was an assumption that grew out of the fact that God is progressing eternally. The only thing I have heard about how He progresses is in his dominion and creations. This is something all Christians would have to agree with.

This does not preclude the fact that the BoM contradicts this theory as does other prophets but that then creates an even greater problem for Mormons.

Again, this does not cause any significant problem from Mormons, because of what I said above and even the prophets in the Bible had disagreements. Paul and Barnabas disagreed so sharply they couldn’t serve together and parted ways. Jonah disagreed with God in His decision to be merciful to the people of Nineveh. God still allowed him to be His prophet. There are other examples I’m sure you are aware of.

Talking about an eternal and infinite God reaching his potential does not make any sense. God's potential is not realized with creating more and more.. what God has created does not add to his glory or potential but is a reflection of what is innately in him.

The statement I made after this one you are quoting says pretty much the same thing. I basically agree with you here.

God acts in accordance with his character, God cannot lie and does not change therefore he cannot chose to lie or chose to change as that is foreign to his character.

This is perfect Mormon Doctrine.

In the context of becoming like Christ, I wonder how you understand the Mormons’ view of Christ’s attributes to be different from yours. Could you please explain?

I think he is referring to the stark differences Christians believe about Jesus versus Mormon doctrine. Mormons believe that Jesus is not eternally God and is indeed a created being born from the Father who was the brother of Lucifer in the pre-existence. This is quite different from what the Bible teaches.

Like Jake, you are avoiding answering the question. Why?
You are mistaken in saying Mormons do not believe that Jesus is eternally God. We believe He IS eternally God. We do not believe, however, that He has always been eternally God. Once He became God, he lived in the past, present and future and will for the rest of eternity. All things are before him. The Bible teaches nothing contradictory to this. The Bible says nowhere that Christ was not created. This is a false sectarian assumption that is not in the Bible. In fact, the Bible testifies that Jesus Christ was indeed created by God and Mary. Is not being born, being created? It is true that He existed in a different state before that, but so did all of mankind. Mormons believe Christ became God eons before this world. So Christ has always existed according to Mormon belief, but not always as God. But that was long before “the beginning†of the Book of Genesis. It has nothing to do with what is being discussed in the Bible. We must remember context when interpreting the scriptures.

Say I come up to you and tell you that you have to meet my girlfriend.. she is amazingly beautiful with red hair.. brown eyes.. cute little freckles... and about 5'1"... If I were to describe her in this way and then you discovered when you met her that she looks NOTHING like that, and actually had blonde hair.. green eyes.. no freckles.. and was 5'5".. you'd say I was describing an entirely different person. Such is the case here.

Again, this thread is about Christ’s personality attributes, not His physical features. Nothing Joseph Smith ever taught contradicts anything in the Bible about how Jesus looked. It is really quite irrelevant.

This is a very interesting group of statements. Speaking from my perspective as a Mormon, we Mormons actually perceive that we believe in the accuracy of the Bible as much or more than most Evangelicals.

This I absolutely know is not true, and while I am aware there is some major differences within the LDS church on certain issues. Almost every in depth discussion I have with Mormons on the Bible usually ends with them challenging the accuracy of the Bible. I can quote MANY different leaders throughout LDS history who have cast doubt on the transmission of the Bible and it's current accuracy.

I can, of course, only speak of my own personal experiences and what the church teaches. I have never been in a discussion with a non-Mormon about the Bible where I felt the need to bring up any inaccuracy of the Bible unless the other person brought it up. There really is no need if the Mormon knows much about the Bible and his own beliefs. Perhaps your experiences have something to do with how you directed the discussion.

But you missed the point of my statement. I compared the Mormons view on Biblical accuracy to that of Evangelicals. There are many examples of how Evangelicals doubt the accuracy of the Bible. Their very reliance on the creeds is an obvious one. I have personally heard three radio preachers, namely, Pastor Cole, Jack Hayford and Dr. Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute, say that the last few verses of the Book of Mark are not supposed to be there and were added later by a scribe. The reason is because these verses teach of the necessity of Baptism, which is a concept they disagree with. There are other examples, but these should suffice.

I would like to know if you have a quote from any Mormon authority that says we don’t believe the Bible to be trustworthy. Could you share with me where you learned something so opposite from what I have been taught all my life?

First of all before I offer my quotes, let me reason with you a moment on the Joesph Smith translation. He added words to the Bible found in NONE of the Greek manuscripts (I know this because I can read the Greek NT and LXX) and if he did this then he felt that the Bible was incomplete and indeed inaccurate. If you read this translation and deem it authoritative then you agree that the Bible as far as it has been preserved to today is in some ways corrupted.
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. Article 8.

I am not disputing the fact that the church teaches that the Bible has its imperfections. Any honest Bible scholar will admit that errors exist in the Bible. Indeed the three well known Evangelical preachers I mentioned above have openly admitted this. The Bible itself quotes numerous scriptures that are not contained in the Bible. So the Bible testifies that it is not complete. The very existence of the hundreds of divergent religions all claiming belief in the same Bible is evidence that clarification is needed. Why shouldn’t God give added insights to what the Bible means and give a prophet some of what has been lost over the centuries.

To say that believing this could happen means one does not trust the Bible is the same as saying that if you accept the last Gospel, the Book of John, you are saying that the other Gospels are not trustworthy. It really is a silly argument when you think about it. You still never offered any quote by any church official that says the Bible is not trustworthy. That is because as a church we do believe it is trustworthy.

The fact that on p. 83 of Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie says this: "When the Bible is read under the guidance of the Spirit, and in harmony with many latter-day revelations which interpret and make plain its more mysterious parts, it becomes one of the most priceless volumes known to man."

Please try to see this from a different perspective, in my opinion, a more complete perspective. What if we took this same quote and substituted the “Old Testament†for the “Bible†and substituted “the New Testament†for “latter-day revelationsâ€. Would you not agree with the reasoning? So it would read, “When the Old Testament is read under the guidance of the Spirit, and in harmony with the New Testament which interprets and makes plain its more mysterious parts, it becomes one of the most priceless volumes known to manâ€.

Mormons take their Churches teaching and then superimpose them over the Bible and thus corrupt it's message from what is clearly spoken.

This sounds like a statement Saul would have made about early Christians before he became one himself.

I speak plainly with you because I believe you to be in great peril and while it seems you believe yourself to be in the right, we must realize that what we believe as well as what we do is very important. If we bring a different gospel then the one presented in the Bible. Then that person according to Galatians 1:8-9 is accursed, which in the Greek means to be handed over to the wrath of God for destruction. We must not pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ, for it will prove our undoing.

I truly am grateful for your sincere concern for my well being. I assure you that the feelings are mutual.

Bless you.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Doulos Iesou, Your comment here is based on a misread of my comment you are quoting. Please notice that I was talking about the EMPHASIS being more on becoming like God. I never even hinted that we do not teach that the result can be becoming a god. If you have any memory at all of the teachings in General Conference or the discussions in Sunday School and Priesthood Meetings, I’m sure you will agree that the EMPHASIS is much more on acquiring Christ’s attributes than being a god. That is what repentance is all about and it says several times in the D&C to “preach only repentance to this generation”.

From what I've read from leaders across the Generations of the LDS Church, the emphasis had changed a bit. Or rather downplayed. As the Church has become more evangelistic and more mainstream, there are certain things the Church has abandoned, i.e. Blacks now have the Priesthood, Plural Marriage is Prohibited. I believe that the teachings of the earlier prophets are far more clear and explicit about the Deification of those who enter into the temple Marriage covenant, than the current prophets, I could speculate for reasons why (and I might be right) but in the end they would be speculations.

It is true that part of the temple marriage covenant talks about becoming gods together. But you are singling out one small part of what is taught in the temple. Again, the EMPHASIS is reminding us of the covenants we make with God and the importance of Christ’s role in everything.
The idea of having spiritual children and populating a world is not even mentioned in any temple ceremony. Please be careful not to misrepresent what goes on in the temple. I’m sure you want to avoid violating the 9th commandment.

Christians believe that we are not under the Mosaic Law, therefore I don't go around hoping not break the 9th commandment. However, whether I am present in the body or absent, I make it my ambition to be pleasing to God and model my savior correctly. I do not believe I was bearing false witness, as I was not saying that is basically the logical conclusion to the whole thing.

Mormon Doctrine has a centralized theme that is overemphasized.. that is restored gospel of Jesus Christ and the continued prophets to lead the church in teaching and edifying to make them more like Christ, I will grant that is the primary emphasis. But if you will zoom out and look at the whole scope of what has been taught over the years, it will appear as if there has been an eternal cycle of gods creating universes and worlds to populate to create more gods to continue this creative process. However, I do understand that the leaders of the church, and the church curriculum do not often focus on this, it is though I believe a large part of the overarching story that Mormonism paints.

A couple issues here. First of all, you need to be careful in quoting sources like the Journal of Discourses. Much of what is in there is not accurate, speculative or just not official doctrine of the church. You have to understand that these are just the result of live dictation of a talk given by a church leader. There was much room for error. Such statements as you have cited here are not church doctrine and even contradict church doctrine. Joseph Smith said just the opposite in Lectures on Faith. This quote is not taught in the church at all.

1. This was taught to me in Sunday School, so it is your opinion that this is not Mormon Doctrine, as I can site sources across the history of the church that agree with this quote.
2. The Journal of Discourses was produced by the Mormon Church and approved by the First Presidency of that day. It was not produced via a stenographer so it would be one thing to grant mistakes here and there but whole sections of coherent sentences about a very specific theological idea is a rather strange mistake. It would be odd if Brigham Young was talking about loving black people... but then the stenographer ended up recording that those who have intercourse with black people should die. So your point is really just an attempt at a defenses that in my opinion fails. The Journal of Discourses is a good and accurate look at the theology of the early prophets and teachers of the LDS church, it's also been a great bain for the church since people actually began to read these sermons in our time.

Second of all, even if this were church doctrine, it does not mean that God is limited in the context of anything that pertains to us. For example, does the fact that Michael Jordan didn’t know how to speak Japanese limit his ability as a basketball player? Of course not. Therefore, if God were increasing in knowledge in some area that is beyond our comprehension, that does not necessarily mean that he is limited in his ability to be our perfect God.

This would still be light years in difference from the Christian view of God.

This is another quote from The Journal of Discourses, so see my above explanation. I should say that the idea of God progressing in some incomprehensible way is something that some Mormons have believed. I know that it is not an official doctrine of the church, however. It was an assumption that grew out of the fact that God is progressing eternally. The only thing I have heard about how He progresses is in his dominion and creations. This is something all Christians would have to agree with.

We do not believe God increasing his dominions and creations is his progression.. please see my response to this, we would never employ the language of progression in regards to God as Mormons have done.

Since when is the teaching of the prophets not official church doctrine? Can we nit pick at what Brigham Young said that is and is not official doctrine? Was he speaking on behalf of God? He certainly thought he was.. so why not believe what he said? If indeed he was speaking on behalf of God presumptuously then according to the Scriptures such a person should be put to death to presume to speak personally for God and it not be so.

Again, this does not cause any significant problem from Mormons, because of what I said above and even the prophets in the Bible had disagreements. Paul and Barnabas disagreed so sharply they couldn’t serve together and parted ways. Jonah disagreed with God in His decision to be merciful to the people of Nineveh. God still allowed him to be His prophet. There are other examples I’m sure you are aware of.

I have several problems with this..

1. In an attempt to defend Mormonism, you attack the consistency of the Bible. This I've found is a very common Mormon apologetic tactic, and it shifts the defensive position into an offensive one.
2. Barnabas was not an author of Scripture, Paul was. We do not believe the men are fallible, though when they speak on behalf of God we do believe they are. The Mormon prophets believed they were speaking on behalf of God when they made their contradictions.
3. You're not understanding the story of Jonah. You see God used stories in the Minor Prophets to paint a picture metaphorically of what is happening in Israel. Hosea and Jonah are prime examples of this. Jonah is not just the story of a wayward prophet who refuses to do the will of God who then gets eaten by a big fish to then begrudgingly fulfill God's will. It is a story that illustrates Israel's failure to fulfill God's purposes through them.. that is to be a blessing to all other nations. God would of course bring about this purpose, but it would be through their own hardness as revealed in the NT.

The statement I made after this one you are quoting says pretty much the same thing. I basically agree with you here.

While you may agree with me, men from your church who spoke on behalf of God agreed. Why is the current consensus and opinion correct over theirs?

Like Jake, you are avoiding answering the question. Why?

I answered the question, why are you saying I am avoiding it. Please read again.

You are mistaken in saying Mormons do not believe that Jesus is eternally God. We believe He IS eternally God. We do not believe, however, that He has always been eternally God.

This is a contradiction...

Once He became God, he lived in the past, present and future and will for the rest of eternity. All things are before him. The Bible teaches nothing contradictory to this. The Bible says nowhere that Christ was not created. This is a false sectarian assumption that is not in the Bible. In fact, the Bible testifies that Jesus Christ was indeed created by God and Mary. Is not being born, being created? It is true that He existed in a different state before that, but so did all of mankind. Mormons believe Christ became God eons before this world. So Christ has always existed according to Mormon belief, but not always as God. But that was long before “the beginning” of the Book of Genesis. It has nothing to do with what is being discussed in the Bible. We must remember context when interpreting the scriptures.

I have a huge problem with this... and it's because of what the Bible explictly teaches in regards to this.

If Jesus is created by God and then exalted by God to the state of Godhood separate from his being, then he cannot be God.

Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. Isaiah 44:8(KJV)

There is no God but Yahweh!

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. Isaiah 43:10(KJV)

No gods before or after Yahweh were formed or created.. he alone is God of all.

Again, this thread is about Christ’s personality attributes, not His physical features. Nothing Joseph Smith ever taught contradicts anything in the Bible about how Jesus looked. It is really quite irrelevant.

I am not disputing the physical features of Jesus, I was using an analogy to demonstrate a point. If Mormons say, Jesus is like this and his nature is like this. And Christians.. and the Bible say differently, then you have another Jesus.

I can, of course, only speak of my own personal experiences and what the church teaches. I have never been in a discussion with a non-Mormon about the Bible where I felt the need to bring up any inaccuracy of the Bible unless the other person brought it up. There really is no need if the Mormon knows much about the Bible and his own beliefs. Perhaps your experiences have something to do with how you directed the discussion.

But you missed the point of my statement. I compared the Mormons view on Biblical accuracy to that of Evangelicals. There are many examples of how Evangelicals doubt the accuracy of the Bible. Their very reliance on the creeds is an obvious one. I have personally heard three radio preachers, namely, Pastor Cole, Jack Hayford and Dr. Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute, say that the last few verses of the Book of Mark are not supposed to be there and were added later by a scribe. The reason is because these verses teach of the necessity of Baptism, which is a concept they disagree with. There are other examples, but these should suffice.

You said that Mormons believe in the accuracy of the Bible as much IF NOT MORE than Evangelicals.. Yet that is not reflected in your comments at all. Stating that some on the fringe of evangelicalism doubt the Bible's accuracy is not an accurate representation of evangelical opinion.

If I quoted 3 Mormons who were kind of on the outskirts of Mormon orthodoxy you'd probably object as well. For one.. "Dr." Walter Martin is not a good apologist and falsely claimed to have a doctorate, these are of course the kind of people who would indeed attack the Bible's accuracy. Jack Hayford has not been as outspoken though I know his position is more on the reliability of Scripture rather than going as far as infallibility and inerrancy.

This is all I have time for.. for now. (I am at work, so I can't do full responses with more Scripture and citations like I normally would)

Blessings,
Servant of Jesus

 

[proveallthings]

Hi Jake.

I am a little confused, because first you said this:

Originally Posted by proveallthings
Actually Jake, based on my 57 years of experience, the emphasis is not at all about becoming a god, but all about becoming like God. Maybe it is just my perception, but I am not aware of any official source that encourages ruling over planets more than just acquiring God’s attributes. I would like to know your source for the idea that Mormons emphasize becoming gods to rule over planets more than just becoming like God.

now you say this:

Originally Posted by proveallthings
I’m sorry for not being more clear about what I was saying. I am very aware of the teaching that we can be gods and even create and have stewardship over new planets which inhabit our children.

What you are attempting to do is turning the focus of the fact your doctrine does state the men's goal is to become a god and rule over a planet. This IS your doctrine and to avoid it is futile. I have already given the Mormon documentation showing your belief. Why do you want to avoid its discussion?

I have not avoided the subject at all. I have simply attempted to correct the claim of your statements that it is the main focus of what the Mormons teach on this subject. You have shown a misunderstanding of what Mormons believe and I am attempting to clear up your misconception about it.
But this is a sidetrack from the original question. By insisting to make the issue of whether the idea of becoming a god is Christian or not, or that it is the emphasis of Mormon doctrine the subject of the thread, you are avoiding the original subject of this thread. Why don’t you just try answering the original question instead of changing the subject?

Originally Posted by proveallthings
Also, something you may not be aware of is what writings are considered official doctrine and which are not. Mormons are aware of the fact that apostles and prophets, modern and those in the Bible are and were not perfect. They have and had their own opinions of things and say and said things that the church does not accept as official doctrine. Things they say or said that is accepted as official doctrine often becomes scripture for future generations.

The above is not quit true either according to Mormon doctrine. In fact, recent prophets have more authority than dead prophets, including those in the Bible. In fact, LDS doctrine claims a word spoken from a Mormon prophet is if it were God speaking.

So you are schooling me in what is and is not Mormon doctrine. Don’t you think I am aware of every quote you use below to back up your point? I agree with and am inspired by every quote here. By saying these quotes contradict my above statement you show your lack of understanding of living prophets and especially the Mormon view of such. You are not a Mormon and are not qualified to tell Mormons what they do and don’t believe. You telling me that I have contradictions in my doctrine is the same as an ex-Christian pointing out what he sees as contradictions in the Bible. Because of human weakness and the imperfection of language, it is always easier to see contradictions than to find agreement through understanding.

There is a difference between stating what is official doctrine that doesn’t change and giving members of the church counsel on how to live better lives and how to apply doctrines to the current issues of the present day. Official doctrine of the church (and often even official practice) is always presented to all of the general authorities and even the entire membership of the church and sustained. If a single apostle says something that appears to be a change to what was previously accepted by the church, it would have to be agreed to by all the leaders before accepted as official. That is how God keeps order in His church. None of the publications you quoted from above outside of scripture meets that criteria.

The LDS prophet stands between Mormons and God.

Leaders’ counsel. The
Lord speaks to us through His chosen leaders. The Savior taught this principle
when He said, “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, … whether by mine own
voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same†(D&C 1:38).
Personal Revelation - Ensign Sept. 1999 - ensign

This quote does not even come close to putting the prophet between anyone and God. It would be the same as saying that Christians put the Bible between them and God. Joseph Smith said that the most profound difference between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other Christian churches is the personal spiritual witness of Jesus Christ and gift of the Holy Ghost to each individual member. He taught that the strength of the church is dependent on the daily dependence on the spirit by each member.

As far as I know, we are in agreement about what Christ's personal attributes are, meaning His qualities of personality and behavior. The types of things that are possible to emulate by us. He commanded us to be perfect as He is. What does that mean? I don't think it means that he wants us to have surgery to have a perfectly shaped nose or something. I'm talking about the example he set while here on earth living as a mortal. He said "follow me". How does the Mormon idea of deification affect how we do that? Look at the original question please. Was Mike's assumption accurate or is there a different possible result.

The phrases and words you use would make one believe you are attempting to emulate Christ in your own power, by your own strength.

Why? Where? How? Why would you assume such a thing? It was Jesus who said, “follow meâ€. I was just quoting Him. I thought you agreed with Jesus.

It is no longer I, but Christ who lives in me, He is the One who is transforming me into Christ to His full measure - completely transformed. You can do nothing apart from Christ, it is all Him and none of you. We are dying to ourselves daily, picking up our cross and literally dying to self. As He increases, we decrease.
It is not simply "an example" - it is a transformation.

I want to agree with this, but it sounds like you may be saying here that Christians have no choice in the matter. Is that what you are saying? Does Jesus force a Christian to follow Him? Does He pick up our cross for us? What part does the Christian play?

I’m glad you said what you did here, and I see its relevance to the original question, but it still really isn’t answering it.

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.

 

[proveallthings]

I'd say this particular belief doesn't add to their arrogance or ungratefulness, you'd be surprised what beliefs can or won't actually lead to arrogance. Take Calvinism for example, this belief is supposed to rip any right to boast out of the person, yet in my experience they can be some of the most arrogant abrasive people you can meet. This is not true for all of course, but I find what ultimately leads towards arrogance in all kinds of people is a belief that THEY are the one's who have it all figured out and everyone else is just deceived, therefore they look down their noses to the rest of the world.

My apologies, Doulos Iesou. I had forgotten your first post on this thread. You did answer at least half of the question. I appreciate that. Please forgive me for overlooking this. This particular post was quite insightful.