The Mormon Belief of Deification

[Jamesone5]

VainSyntheticPiety,

So I'm supposed to see the "light of Jesus Christ" in you and your statements when you admit you are being cynical and sarcastic? That the Church you represent is really the True One after all?

 

[By Grace]

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.

I am sure that you have heard of the Lorenzo Snow Couplet

As man is, God once was;
As God is, man may become
​

Regarding Kolob, I am also sure that you remember it being in the Book of Abraham

And if you will go to hymn 248 In the Mormon Hymnal, you will find "If you could Hie to Kolob" Here are the lyrics to "If you could hie to Kolob In the twinkling of an eye"

If you could hie to Kolob In the twinkling of an eye,
And then continue onward With that same speed to fly,
Do you think that you could ever, Through all eternity,
Find out the generation Where Gods began to be?

Or see the grand beginning, Where space did not extend?
Or view the last creation, Where Gods and matter end?
Me thinks the Spirit whispers, “No man has found ‘pure space,’
Nor seen the outside curtains, Where nothing has a place.â€

The works of God continue, And worlds and lives abound;
Improvement and progression Have one eternal round.
There is no end to matter; There is no end to space;
There is no end to spirit; There is no end to race.

There is no end to virtue; There is no end to might;
There is no end to wisdom; There is no end to light.
There is no end to union; There is no end to youth;
There is no end to priesthood; There is no end to truth.

There is no end to glory; There is no end to love;
There is no end to being; There is no death above.
There is no end to glory; There is no end to love;
There is no end to being; There is no death above.

​

Then there is their view of the US Constitution:
Latter Day Saints believe that the United States Constitution is a divinely inspired document.
^ Dallin H. Oaks (Feb. 1992). "The Divinely Inspired Constitution". Ensign.
^ See D&C 101:77–80


[FONT=&quot]In a nutshell, this Plan of Salvation provided that we would come down to earth and receive a body. During this life on earth it is our duty to learn to control our body (suppress its appetites and bring it into the submission of our will and spirit), we must experience pleasure and pain, sickness and health, so that we can appreciate health and happiness. We must also seek out and find the one True Church on earth, gain a testimony of it, become a member of it, receive all of the requisite ordinances found only in the one true church (baptism, confirmation, LDS temple endowment, and LDS temple marriage), and we must be completely obedient to all of the Heavenly Father’s commandments (as given through the one true church – The Mormon Church – and its Prophet, Apostles and leaders). from http://www.truthshallsetufree.com/Mormon_God.html[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

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.

2 Nephi 29:6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?

The Joseph Smith Translation has restored some of the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible (1 Ne. 13). Although it is not the official Bible of the Church, this translation does offer many interesting insights and is very valuable in understanding the Bible. It is also a witness for the divine calling and ministry of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
​

from http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/joseph-smith-translation-jst.p5?lang=eng&letter=j

Would you be so kind as to explain the discrepancies between what you posted (and which I copied), and what I quoted from various LDS sources?

 

[Jamesone5]

One of the main things satan will always try to do is to diminish God in a huge variety of ways and attempt to convince each of us that God is less Omnipotent than He is or maybe just to doubt Him and His Word. Just like in the Garden of Eden, pride got in the way of following through with the One commandment God issued because satan deceived Eve and then Adam to doubt God's Word. Part of satan's lie in Genesis 3:5 was "you will be like God"---knowing good and evil. To "be like God" is really instilled in the sin nature of each of us in all the different ways we doubt Him, deny Him, diminish Him or just try to bring Him down to an understandable human size.

I have realized that since I left the LDS Church, this Doctrine of Eternal Progression or this belief in Deification really answers a lot of satan's goals to try to deceive any of us into believing in a "little God"--one who supposedly was a man just like ourselves at one time and of course there is the deception that claims we each have the potential to be exulted like Him. Jesus of course in just a mere man in LDS Doctrine who "made good" in a sense [also our brother]--in reality a Christ Who is hardly worthy of a True worship.

 

[By Grace]

I have realized that since I left the LDS Church, this Doctrine of Eternal Progression or this belief in Deification really answers a lot of satan's goals to try to deceive any of us into believing in a "little God"--one who supposedly was a man just like ourselves at one time and of course there is the deception that claims we each have the potential to be exulted like Him. Jesus of course in just a mere man in LDS Doctrine who "made good" in a sense [also our brother]--in reality a Christ Who is hardly worthy of a True worship.

Iit is the oldest lie in the Universe.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
​

It is incredibly sad that the LDS people do not pay too much attention to Genesis.

 

[proveallthings]

By Grace, nothing in this post shows any contradiction to this statement of mine you are quoting here.

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.

I am sure that you have heard of the Lorenzo Snow Couplet
As man is, God once was;
As God is, man may become.

I have been aware of it since I was quite young. This does not address the question of emphasis I am talking about. Read the quote again.

[/INDENT]Regarding Kolob, I am also sure that you remember it being in the Book of Abraham

And if you will go to hymn 248 In the Mormon Hymnal, you will find "If you could Hie to Kolob" Here are the lyrics to "If you could hie to Kolob In the twinkling of an eye".

I’ve always like this hymn. It begins with the incomprehensible vastness of God and then emphasizes his virtues and character traits that we are trying to emulate. Exactly what I have been saying is our emphasis.

[/INDENT] Then there is their view of the US Constitution:
Latter Day Saints believe that the United States Constitution is a divinely inspired document.
^ Dallin H. Oaks (Feb. 1992). "The Divinely Inspired Constitution". Ensign.
^ See D&C 101:77–80

This quote seems strangely out of place in this discussion. Besides, I was under the impression that most mainstream Christians agree with this sentiment.

[FONT=&quot]In a nutshell, this Plan of Salvation provided that we would come down to earth and receive a body. During this life on earth it is our duty to learn to control our body (suppress its appetites and bring it into the submission of our will and spirit), we must experience pleasure and pain, sickness and health, so that we can appreciate health and happiness. We must also seek out and find the one True Church on earth, gain a testimony of it, become a member of it, receive all of the requisite ordinances found only in the one true church (baptism, confirmation, LDS temple endowment, and LDS temple marriage), and we must be completely obedient to all of the Heavenly Father’s commandments (as given through the one true church – The Mormon Church – and its Prophet, Apostles and leaders). from http://www.truthshallsetufree.com/Mormon_God.html[/FONT]

Even this quote from an anti-Mormon website does not contradict my point. But you should know that this was not written by any church authority, but by a critic of the church.

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.

2 Nephi 29:6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?
​

This quote is part of a brilliant argument by the Lord against those who shall claim that God is limited to just one book of scripture. It in no way diminishes the value of the Bible. Here is the rest of the quote.

“ 7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

Would you be so kind as to explain the discrepancies between what you posted (and which I copied), and what I quoted from various LDS sources?

I see no discrepancies.​

 

[By Grace]

I have been aware of it since I was quite young. This does not address the question of emphasis I am talking about. Read the quote again.

That couplet is very contradictory to what you posted, and to which I replied.

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.

That couplet does NOT say anything about becoming LIKE God, it clearly says that humans MAY become God. That is a huge difference.

Therefore a contradiction

I’ve always like this hymn. It begins with the incomprehensible vastness of God and then emphasizes his virtues and character traits that we are trying to emulate. Exactly what I have been saying is our emphasi

In light of your original statement about planets, said by Jake,

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.

Therefore ANOTHER contradiction

This quote seems strangely out of place in this discussion. Besides, I was under the impression that most mainstream Christians agree with this sentiment.

No, Christians do not believe that the US constitution is "divinely inspired" as is the Bible. You are making a gross and general generalization, which like most generalizations, is grossly wrong, and generally has no basis in reality.

Therefore ANOTHER contradiction

Even this quote from an anti-Mormon website does not contradict my point. But you should know that this was not written by any church authority, but by a critic of the church.

The fact that it is a website that you do not like does not mean that it is a fabrication. If you do not like what it says, demonstrate the error in that.

Therefore ANOTHER contradiction

Originally Posted by By Grace

Originally Posted by proveallthings
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.

2 Nephi 29:6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?



This quote is part of a brilliant argument by the Lord against those who shall claim that God is limited to just one book of scripture. It in no way diminishes the value of the Bible. Here is the rest of the quote.
​

“ 7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.​

This does NOT mitigate the statement in 2Nephi9:6 where the statement is that those who believe in only the Bob;e is a FOOL.

Therefore ANOTHER contradiction

Quote Originally Posted by By Grace View Post Would you be so kind as to explain the discrepancies between what you posted (and which I copied), and what I quoted from various LDS sources?

I see no discrepancies.

Respectfully and truthfully, and without any sense of malice, I say that you are unable to see the contradictions because according to Scripture, you are spiritually blinded by the god of this age.

2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
​

When you open your heart to Jesus Christ and receive Him as your ONLY Savior, you will see that, and then wonder how deep your blindness once was. I sincerely hope that you come to that point, and that is the SOLE reason why I dialog with Mormons on the net.​

 

[proveallthings]

One of the main things satan will always try to do is to diminish God in a huge variety of ways and attempt to convince each of us that God is less Omnipotent than He is or maybe just to doubt Him and His Word. Just like in the Garden of Eden, pride got in the way of following through with the One commandment God issued because satan deceived Eve and then Adam to doubt God's Word.

I agree with all of this except when you say it was the only commandment. You forget the first great commandment to Adam and Eve was to multiply and replenish the earth.

Part of satan's lie in Genesis 3:5 was "you will be like God"---knowing good and evil.

Actually, it was part of his plan to persuade Eve to disobey, but it was in no way a lie. God himself acknowledged this in verse 22 when he said,â€Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evilâ€. Verse 22 clearly shows that to become like God was not a lie and therefore cannot be construed from verse 5 to be a sin. The way Satan used this truth was to spin it so that Eve would think that God was holding something back from them and even may have inferred that God was afraid of the competition. That, of course is a sinful idea. By polluting this one simple truth with innuendo and suspicion, Satan was able to persuade Eve to lose some of her trust in God.

To "be like God" is really instilled in the sin nature of each of us in all the different ways we doubt Him, deny Him, diminish Him or just try to bring Him down to an understandable human size.

I guess this is one way to look at it. Please consider the possibility of an even more rational interpretation. Since this was before the fall, Eve did not have what you call a “sin nature†as yet. Because of this I would suggest that the inherent desire to become like her heavenly parent came from God. Satan planned to use that innate righteous desire to deceive her into doubting the purity of God’s motives.

Consider the fact that nowhere in all of the Bible does it ever say that man cannot become like God. Nowhere does it say that we should not desire to be like God. Since that is the case, the doctrine that God does not want us to be like Him can only be an assumption, not a clear teaching of the Bible.

On the other hand, there are several places in the Bible that we are encouraged and even commanded to be like God. Matt. 5:48 says it as bluntly as it could possibly be said. In John 17 Jesus prays that his apostles and those who hear their words will become one like He and His Father and even one WITH them. I could refer you to several more if you like.

I have realized that since I left the LDS Church, this Doctrine of Eternal Progression or this belief in Deification really answers a lot of satan's goals to try to deceive any of us into believing in a "little God"--one who supposedly was a man just like ourselves at one time and of course there is the deception that claims we each have the potential to be exulted like Him. Jesus of course in just a mere man in LDS Doctrine who "made good" in a sense [also our brother]--in reality a Christ Who is hardly worthy of a True worship.

With all due respect, you say you came to this realization after you left the church. I would submit that your leaving caused you to forget several important spiritual truths that you were taught while in the church. Either that or you were not well educated as to what the official teaching of the church is on this subject.

The church has always taught that God is omnipotent and omniscient. There is not a single quote you can find, even in the Journal of Discourses, where an authority of the church has taught that our desire to become like God should diminish our reverence for His power or knowledge. So for all of the inhabitants of this earth, which is the context of the Bible, Mormons believe God the Father and Christ have always been all powerful and all knowing. How does the idea that they reached that state of being from a lower state like ours sometime eons before “the beginning†(Gen. 1:1) make them any less worthy of our worship?

Here’s another way to consider this. If God has perfect love and calls us His children. If He experiences perfect joy, happiness and fulfilment, why would He not want us, whom He loves so much, to be like Him? When you think about it this way, it is diminishing God to say that we cannot become like Him, because it is saying that He can’t. Because if He really does love us perfectly, He would want us to have all that He has. To say that there is not a way for us to do so, is to say that God cannot figure out a way to arrange it. The way I see it, your way of looking at this diminishes God much more than mine.

 

[proveallthings]

That couplet does NOT say anything about becoming LIKE God, it clearly says that humans MAY become God. That is a huge difference.
Therefore a contradiction

I have never stated that Mormons do not or have not taught the idea that we can become a God. So how does this contradict anything I have said? The reference you are claiming this contradicts says that the church has never taught that we should emphasize this idea more than the idea of becoming like God. This quote does not talk about emphasis at all and does not even discuss the idea of becoming like God. So how could it possibly contradict my statement about emphasis of one over the other?

In light of your original statement about planets, said by Jake,

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.

Therefore ANOTHER contradiction

You first have to understand that Kolob is the planet closest to God. Therefore this hymn is talking about desiring to be as close to God as possible. It says nothing of ruling over our own planets.

This quote seems strangely out of place in this discussion. Besides, I was under the impression that most mainstream Christians agree with this sentiment.

No, Christians do not believe that the US constitution is "divinely inspired" as is the Bible. You are making a gross and general generalization, which like most generalizations, is grossly wrong, and generally has no basis in reality.
Therefore ANOTHER contradiction

Awe, a misunderstanding of what we mean when we say "inspired by God". I'm sorry. I should have recognized this. I shouldn't expect you to be aware of the fact that just because the inspiration of God was involved in the constitution that it is on the same level as scripture. We do not believe that it is. I have heard several mainstream Christian preachers state that the constitution had the blessing of God and even involved His inspiration.

I am still wondering how this relates to this discussion on deification.

Even this quote from an anti-Mormon website does not contradict my point. But you should know that this was not written by any church authority, but by a critic of the church.

The fact that it is a website that you do not like does not mean that it is a fabrication. If you do not like what it says, demonstrate the error in that.
Therefore ANOTHER contradiction

But there is nothing in this quote that covers the issue of the emphasis Mormons put on ruling over planets over becoming like God.

Originally Posted by By Grace

Originally Posted by proveallthings
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.

2 Nephi 29:6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?



This quote is part of a brilliant argument by the Lord against those who shall claim that God is limited to just one book of scripture. It in no way diminishes the value of the Bible. Here is the rest of the quote.
​

“ 7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.​

This does NOT mitigate the statement in 2Nephi9:6 where the statement is that those who believe in only the Bible is a FOOL.
Therefore ANOTHER contradiction​

I didn't want to mitigate it. If God wants to call the belief of the Bible being all of His word a foolish belief, why should I want to mitigate that. The rest of the verses I quoted just allow him to make His case. Just consider the logic of the argument and forget who the messenger is for a moment. How can you argue against it?

But I scratch my head trying to figure out the relevance of this to the discussion of deification.

Quote Originally Posted by By Grace View Post Would you be so kind as to explain the discrepancies between what you posted (and which I copied), and what I quoted from various LDS sources?

I see no discrepancies.

Respectfully and truthfully, and without any sense of malice, I say that you are unable to see the contradictions because according to Scripture, you are spiritually blinded by the god of this age.

2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
​

When you open your heart to Jesus Christ and receive Him as your ONLY Savior, you will see that, and then wonder how deep your blindness once was. I sincerely hope that you come to that point, and that is the SOLE reason why I dialog with Mormons on the net.

Again, nothing here says anything about Mormons emphasizing the teaching of ruling over planets more than the teachings of becoming like God. If you see that they are, please explain.​

 

[By Grace]

I have never stated that Mormons do not or have not taught the idea that we can become a God. So how does this contradict anything I have said? The reference you are claiming this contradicts says that the church has never taught that we should emphasize this idea more than the idea of becoming like God. This quote does not talk about emphasis at all and does not even discuss the idea of becoming like God. So how could it possibly contradict my statement about emphasis of one over the other?

The last line of the first verse of this blasphemous song do not support your statement above.

If you could hie to Kolob In the twinkling of an eye,
And then continue onward With that same speed to fly,
Do you think that you could ever, Through all eternity,
Find out the generation Where Gods began to be?

I have never stated that Mormons do not or have not taught the idea that we can become a God. So how does this contradict anything I have said? The reference you are claiming this contradicts says that the church has never taught that we should emphasize this idea more than the idea of becoming like God. This quote does not talk about emphasis at all and does not even discuss the idea of becoming like God. So how could it possibly contradict my statement about emphasis of one over the other?

originally you wrote:

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.

You are contradicting yourself, and in the process bearing false witness against yourself.

Again, here is your original statement:

Originally Posted by proveallthings
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.

2 Nephi 29:6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?

The Joseph Smith Translation has restored some of the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible (1 Ne. 13). Although it is not the official Bible of the Church, this translation does offer many interesting insights and is very valuable in understanding the Bible. It is also a witness for the divine calling and ministry of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
​

from http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/jos...g=eng&letter=j

Would you be so kind as to explain the discrepancies between what you posted (and which I copied), and what I quoted from various LDS sources?
You see, calling a Bible believer a fool for believing only the Bible is NOT the same as saying we believe in the accuracy of the Bible as much or more than most Evangelicals.
In doing so, you are then calling Evangelicals fools, or are you also calling yourself and other LDS people fools? You cannot have it both ways, fellow. For sure, your statements are inconsistent... I'll stop at that.

 

[proveallthings]

 Originally Posted by proveallthings  
"I have never stated that Mormons do not or have not taught the idea that we can become a God. So how does this contradict anything I have said? The reference you are claiming this contradicts says that the church has never taught that we should emphasize this idea more than the idea of becoming like God. This quote does not talk about emphasis at all and does not even discuss the idea of becoming like God. So how could it possibly contradict my statement about emphasis of one over the other?"
originally you wrote:
 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."
You are contradicting yourself, and in the process bearing false witness against yourself.

By Grace, I think we have a misunderstanding here. When I say that LDS teachings emphasize becoming like God more than ruling over our own planet, I don't mean that in each instance of teaching that we are emphasizing becoming like over ruling over. I mean that the one is taught overwhelmingly more frequently than the other. Of course both are taught, but the of ruling over a planet idea is extremely rare, while the idea of becoming like is something we hear in every lesson or talk almost. This is evidence of the importance we place on one verses the other. That is what I mean by emphasis. Does this help you to see how I am not contradicting myself?

Again, here is your original statement:

Originally Posted by proveallthings
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.

2 Nephi 29:6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?

I thought I already answered this one. All the Lord is saying here is that the idea of the Bible being all of His words is a foolish one. The verses that follow explain why. You may disagree, but I don't understand why you keep bringing it up without challenging the reasons behind it.

The Joseph Smith Translation has restored some of the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible (1 Ne. 13). Although it is not the official Bible of the Church, this translation does offer many interesting insights and is very valuable in understanding the Bible. It is also a witness for the divine calling and ministry of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

I never said that LDS believe the Bible is perfect or complete. I only said that we valued its accuracy as much or more than Evangelicals. This quote comes from a post in conversation with Jake, where I explained why Evangelicals may value it less. Briefly, I used the example of the belief about the last few verses of Mark not belonging there by three of the most influential and well thought of Evangelical ministers. I also referenced the importance of the extra-Biblical creeds and how they are revered at the same level as the Bible. So it is not that LDS believe the Bible to be inerrant so much as the belief system of Evangelicals values the Bible a lot less than they like to admit.

Would you be so kind as to explain the discrepancies between what you posted (and which I copied), and what I quoted from various LDS sources?

I hope my above explanations satisfy you. If there is more need for clarification just let me know.

You see, calling a Bible believer a fool for believing only the Bible is NOT the same as saying we believe in the accuracy of the Bible as much or more than most Evangelicals.

I think you are forgetting that you are the one who decided to use this scripture to apply to this point, not me. I personally don't see that it adds much clarity to my claim. It is talking about the completeness of the Bible, not its accuracy or how much it should be valued. I really don't think it is all that relevant to this discussion.

 

[Jamesone5]

I agree with all of this except when you say it was the only commandment. You forget the first great commandment to Adam and Eve was to multiply and replenish the earth.

Here's the problem with you assertion--Mormonism teaches that the Fall was really a good thing--something that had to happen so A&E had to go through before the "could be fruitful and multiply" God had already Blessed them and told them of this in Gen. 1:28 and it was going to happen regardless of their disobedience. The desire to "be like God" in a sense was that they did not want to heed His One Command to them about not partaking of the fruit on the midst of the garden [Gen. 3:3]

Actually, it was part of his plan to persuade Eve to disobey, but it was in no way a lie. God himself acknowledged this in verse 22 when he said,â€Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evilâ€. Verse 22 clearly shows that to become like God was not a lie and therefore cannot be construed from verse 5 to be a sin. The way Satan used this truth was to spin it so that Eve would think that God was holding something back from them and even may have inferred that God was afraid of the competition. That, of course is a sinful idea. By polluting this one simple truth with innuendo and suspicion, Satan was able to persuade Eve to lose some of her trust in God.

Once again "be like God" in which we don't have to be subservient to Him and not heed His Commands OR "be like God" to where we are striving to always honor and Glorify Him. Adam and Eve chose the first, but then that sin continues to carry out even in our own lives.


I guess this is one way to look at it. Please consider the possibility of an even more rational interpretation. Since this was before the fall, Eve did not have what you call a “sin nature†as yet. Because of this I would suggest that the inherent desire to become like her heavenly parent came from God. Satan planned to use that innate righteous desire to deceive her into doubting the purity of God’s motives.

Satan lied to cause Eve to doubt God--to put her own desires before God and His Command.

Consider the fact that nowhere in all of the Bible does it ever say that man cannot become like God. Nowhere does it say that we should not desire to be like God. Since that is the case, the doctrine that God does not want us to be like Him can only be an assumption, not a clear teaching of the Bible.

On the other hand, there are several places in the Bible that we are encouraged and even commanded to be like God. Matt. 5:48 says it as bluntly as it could possibly be said. In John 17 Jesus prays that his apostles and those who hear their words will become one like He and His Father and even one WITH them. I could refer you to several more if you like.

I have realized that since I left the LDS Church, this Doctrine of Eternal Progression or this belief in Deification really answers a lot of satan's goals to try to deceive any of us into believing in a "little God"--one who supposedly was a man just like ourselves at one time and of course there is the deception that claims we each have the potential to be exulted like Him. Jesus of course in just a mere man in LDS Doctrine who "made good" in a sense [also our brother]--in reality a Christ Who is hardly worthy of a True worship.

With all due respect, you say you came to this realization after you left the church. I would submit that your leaving caused you to forget several important spiritual truths that you were taught while in the church. Either that or you were not well educated as to what the official teaching of the church is on this subject.

The church has always taught that God is omnipotent and omniscient. There is not a single quote you can find, even in the Journal of Discourses, where an authority of the church has taught that our desire to become like God should diminish our reverence for His power or knowledge. So for all of the inhabitants of this earth, which is the context of the Bible, Mormons believe God the Father and Christ have always been all powerful and all knowing. How does the idea that they reached that state of being from a lower state like ours sometime eons before “the beginning†(Gen. 1:1) make them any less worthy of our worship?

Of course you don't see how this diminishes them to have those Beliefs in the Attributes of God and Jesus Christ--your Church will not allow you to see the huge difference in how God is to be worshiped in being always Who He Is and worshiping Him in some sort of state where He supposedly at one time Progressed to His Present State.


Here’s another way to consider this. If God has perfect love and calls us His children. If He experiences perfect joy, happiness and fulfilment, why would He not want us, whom He loves so much, to be like Him? When you think about it this way, it is diminishing God to say that we cannot become like Him, because it is saying that He can’t. Because if He really does love us perfectly, He would want us to have all that He has. To say that there is not a way for us to do so, is to say that God cannot figure out a way to arrange it. The way I see it, your way of looking at this diminishes God much more than mine.

The trouble with the whole Eternal Progression thing is that man supposedly has this chance to be Exaulted and in that "God becomes lesser while man becomes more"----in a sense. We really never develop any sort of dependance on Christ when we think all our good works and our human endeavors cause us to strive to obey all the Laws and Ordinances will put us on this path where we are supposedly progressing "to be like God". Christ is simply out of the equation, except for His Atonement {which Mormons believe is very limited, by the way]

 

[proveallthings]

The trouble with the whole Eternal Progression thing is that man supposedly has this chance to be Exaulted and in that "God becomes lesser while man becomes more"----in a sense. We really never develop any sort of dependance on Christ when we think all our good works and our human endeavors cause us to strive to obey all the Laws and Ordinances will put us on this path where we are supposedly progressing "to be like God". Christ is simply out of the equation, except for His Atonement {which Mormons believe is very limited, by the way]

Please understand that nothing you said here about the LDS view is in any way accurate. Christ is at the center of eternal progression. Our good works are meaningless without Christ and His atonement. His atonement is in no way limited. It encompasses everything. Complete reliance and dependence on Christ and his gift are essential to our progression. The Book of Mormon teaches that even after all we do, it is His grace that saves us. We also learn that any good work is not good at all without dependence on Christ in the process. I'm curious where in any Mormon literature you have gotten the idea that our view of the atonement is limited. What LDS scripture have you misinterpreted to bring you to the conclusion that Christ is "out of the equation"?

And please explain to me how God assisting His children to become like Him, sharing with us His greatness and glory, can somehow cause Him to be lesser. This seems like a very scarcity mind set to me. Like being afraid to have a second child because your love will now be divided and your first child will lose half of the love he now gets. God has an abundance mindset. Why was Paul wrong when he said in Romans 8 that we can be joint heirs with Christ? How does our becoming one with the Father and the Son diminish their glory?

 

[Jamesone5]

The trouble with the whole Eternal Progression thing is that man supposedly has this chance to be Exaulted and in that "God becomes lesser while man becomes more"----in a sense. We really never develop any sort of dependance on Christ when we think all our good works and our human endeavors cause us to strive to obey all the Laws and Ordinances will put us on this path where we are supposedly progressing "to be like God". Christ is simply out of the equation, except for His Atonement {which Mormons believe is very limited, by the way]

Please understand that nothing you said here about the LDS view is in any way accurate. Christ is at the center of eternal progression. Our good works are meaningless without Christ and His atonement. His atonement is in no way limited. It encompasses everything. Complete reliance and dependence on Christ and his gift are essential to our progression. The Book of Mormon teaches that even after all we do, it is His grace that saves us. We also learn that any good work is not good at all without dependence on Christ in the process. I'm curious where in any Mormon literature you have gotten the idea that our view of the atonement is limited. What LDS scripture have you misinterpreted to bring you to the conclusion that Christ is "out of the equation"?

And please explain to me how God assisting His children to become like Him, sharing with us His greatness and glory, can somehow cause Him to be lesser. This seems like a very scarcity mind set to me. Like being afraid to have a second child because your love will now be divided and your first child will lose half of the love he now gets. God has an abundance mindset. Why was Paul wrong when he said in Romans 8 that we can be joint heirs with Christ? How does our becoming one with the Father and the Son diminish their glory?

Let's start with the Blood Atonement Belief for starters:
Brigham Young, the second president of the Mormon Church, publicly preached what is known as the "blood atonement" doctrine—i.e., that a man might be killed to save his soul. His sermons were published in the Church's own newspaper, Deseret News, and were later reprinted by the Mormons in England in the Journal of Discourses. There can be no question, therefore, regarding the accuracy of the printed reports. In one sermon, President Brigham Young made these comments:
There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness ... and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone, for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world. I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine, but it is to save them, not to destroy them....
And furthermore, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood.... I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit.... There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, of a calf, or of turtle doves, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man. That is the reason why men talk to you as they do from this stand; they understand the doctrine and throw out a few words about it. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 53-54; also published in the Deseret News, 1856, page 235)


President Joseph Fielding Smith has written: "Man may commit certain grievous sins ... that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ .... Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf." (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp.133­138. )


Apostle Bruce R. McConkie claims that blood atonement was not actually practiced but feels that it is a true principle: "... under certain circumstances there are some serious sins for which [FONT=&quot]the cleansing of Christ does not operate[/FONT], and the law of God is that men must have [FONT=&quot]their own blood shed to atone for their sins[/FONT]..." ([FONT=&quot]Mormon Doctrine[/FONT], 1958, p. 87).

Joseph Smith,two later Prophets of the Church here and one Apostle all claim that Christ's Atonement is limited---there are certain sins which Christ's Atonement cannot reach. Your 3rd article of Faith also makes the statement that while you believe in the Atonement of Christ--it is conditional. That is, Obedience to the Laws and Ordinance of the Church are required as well.

As to sharing in God's Greatness and Glory---truly do you honestly think you should be glorified as God? Maybe have some Psalms written to you about how great and glorious you are? Your Church clearly teaches this "Exalted man" belief in many forms.

 

[proveallthings]

Let's start with the Blood Atonement Belief for starters:
... In one sermon, President Brigham Young made these comments:
There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness ... and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground.... I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine, but it is to save them, not to destroy them....

First of all, it needs to be understood that this was never a call to execute anyone. They were only emphasizing the seriousness of certain sins. There is not a single instance in all of church history, where a church leader, acting as such, authorized anyone’s death because of any sin. Capital punishment by civil authorities is a practice that is believed in by many Christian groups and the Bible. Brigham was simply pointing out that capital punishment is not only good for society, but can benefit the criminal as well under certain circumstances.

I should have clarified that what I meant by the atonement not being limited is that it is no more limited than most of mainstream Christianity believes. In fact, the LDS understanding of the atonement is far less limited than most other Christian perspectives. This idea of blood atonement is very much misunderstood and I haven’t heard it ever preached from the pulpit at any level of the church or even in any lessons in my lifetime. The reason it is not generally taught is because it applies to such a rare few in our society and is not relevant to the average person.

The atonement is much more limited in most other Christian belief systems because they limit the atonement to only those who have had a chance in this life to hear the gospel. So the majority of those who have lived on this earth are not even eligible. That is not the case with LDS doctrine. We believe that every single person that has or ever will live on this earth will have the chance to accept or reject Jesus Christ. Your quotes from church leaders identify ways that people can REJECT Jesus and the atonement. Don’t all Christians believe that the atonement is unavailable to anyone who rejects it?

Your 3rd article of Faith also makes the statement that while you believe in the Atonement of Christ--it is conditional. That is, Obedience to the Laws and Ordinance of the Church are required as well.

Don’t all Christians believe that some effort by the individual is required to be saved? Don’t they believe that a person must ACCEPT the grace of Christ. There is always an individual choice that must be made. The question is, what constitutes accepting? Is it a single choice at one single time, or does it involve multiple choices throughout our lives? The debate of what qualifies as ACCEPTING the gift and whether it is a one time event or not, goes on and on throughout these forums among the mainstream Christians. There is no consensus among evangelicals on this topic.

How is this article of faith any different from what Jesus said in Matthew chapter 7, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.†Anytime we knowingly disobey a commandment of Christ’s, are we not rejecting Him? Aren’t we saying, “I don’t believe you. Go away and leave me alone� Mormons believe that each time we come back to Him and accept Him again, He forgives us. He will never stop forgiving us as long as we continue to choose Him.

Mormons believe not only in the cleansing power of the atonement, but also in its empowering influence. We believe there is nothing good we can do that we can take total credit for. We are taught that the atonement will not work unless we acknowledge God’s hand in all things. We can do nothing good without the influence of Christ.

As to sharing in God's Greatness and Glory[/B]---truly do you honestly think you should be glorified as God? Maybe have some Psalms written to you about how great and glorious you are? Your Church clearly teaches this "Exalted man" belief in many forms.

You are building a straw man again here, criticising us for believing something we don’t believe in. Mormons do not believe anyone can be exalted with an attitude of pride as you infer here. We can only be exalted by becoming one with the Father and the Son, just as He prayed His disciples would do in John 17.

 

[Jamesone5]

First of all, it needs to be understood that this was never a call to execute anyone. They were only emphasizing the seriousness of certain sins. There is not a single instance in all of church history, where a church leader, acting as such, authorized anyone’s death because of any sin. Capital punishment by civil authorities is a practice that is believed in by many Christian groups and the Bible. Brigham was simply pointing out that capital punishment is not only good for society, but can benefit the criminal as well under certain circumstances.

[FONT=&quot]Was not referring to capital punishment, but since you bring it up I will respond. Certainly you know that the State of Utah still has execution by a firing squad as a option? That is, it is the one method that “spills blood” that was enacted back when Utah became a State and reflect the blood atonement Doctrine instituted by the early LDS Church.[/FONT]

I should have clarified that what I meant by the atonement not being limited is that it is no more limited than most of mainstream Christianity believes. In fact, the LDS understanding of the atonement is far less limited than most other Christian perspectives. This idea of blood atonement is very much misunderstood and I haven’t heard it ever preached from the pulpit at any level of the church or even in any lessons in my lifetime. The reason it is not generally taught is because it applies to such a rare few in our society and is not relevant to the average person.

[FONT=&quot]You still are avoiding the issue of Christ’s atonement not being for those who commit murder and as to why it is not preached so much in your Church, is that the Doctrine has many problems with it. For instance, how could Paul or even King David have made it to Heaven as both of them at least were partially responsible for the deaths of others at one time in their lives? And, since Christ says in Matthew 5:21-22 that even in our anger towards someone , we are guilty of Judgment on the Commandment against murder-- all should have their blood shed—according to this doctrine.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

The atonement is much more limited in most other Christian belief systems because they limit the atonement to only those who have had a chance in this life to hear the gospel. So the majority of those who have lived on this earth are not even eligible. That is not the case with LDS doctrine. We believe that every single person that has or ever will live on this earth will have the chance to accept or reject Jesus Christ. Your quotes from church leaders identify ways that people can REJECT Jesus and the atonement. Don’t all Christians believe that the atonement is unavailable to anyone who rejects it?

[FONT=&quot]Yes, your Church believes in the fact that people supposedly get a second chance in the afterlife to accept or reject the Gospel of Christ. It ties into the baptizing for the dead belief and supposedly points to the fact that worthy members can continue to progress towards perfection after they die. Absolutely NOT Biblical.[/FONT]

Don’t all Christians believe that some effort by the individual is required to be saved? Don’t they believe that a person must ACCEPT the grace of Christ. There is always an individual choice that must be made. The question is, what constitutes accepting? Is it a single choice at one single time, or does it involve multiple choices throughout our lives? The debate of what qualifies as ACCEPTING the gift and whether it is a one time event or not, goes on and on throughout these forums among the mainstream Christians. There is no consensus among evangelicals on this topic.

[FONT=&quot]Faith versus works is really the topic. When a Believer truly accepts the True Christ and their heart is right, those works follow—not so much in a rigid Obedience fashion but rather as a result of our Love for Him and being somewhat of a “new creation in Christ”. I know that the LDS Church teaches that no one has the Holy Spirit but themselves, but I find that the Holy Spirit prompts me often and I don’t keep a scorecard on[/FONT]

How is this article of faith any different from what Jesus said in Matthew chapter 7, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” Anytime we knowingly disobey a commandment of Christ’s, are we not rejecting Him? Aren’t we saying, “I don’t believe you. Go away and leave me alone”? Mormons believe that each time we come back to Him and accept Him again, He forgives us. He will never stop forgiving us as long as we continue to choose Him.

[FONT=&quot]The will of the Father is that we should believe on Him He sent—accept His Sacrifice in abiding Faith.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Your last few sentences here indicate you have a partial belief in the Grace of Christ and how we really never measure up. He does never stop forgiving us as long as our heart is repentant and we keep on turning towards Him.[/FONT]

Quote Originally Posted by Jamnesone5 View Post As to sharing in God's Greatness and Glory[/B]---truly do you honestly think you should be glorified as God? Maybe have some Psalms written to you about how great and glorious you are? Your Church clearly teaches this "Exalted man" belief in many forms. You are building a straw man again here, criticising us for believing something we don’t believe in. Mormons do not believe anyone can be exalted with an attitude of pride as you infer here. We can only be exalted by becoming one with the Father and the Son, just as He prayed His disciples would do in John 17.

Glorify in Strong's concordance is listed as: to render, to esteem glorious, to honor and praise and also the meanings as they might apply to man are: to be boastful and bragging. Certainly on one hand while we are saying we are submissive to Christ, we hardly want to share in the Glory that is His and God's alone.

 

[By Grace]

I mean that the one is taught overwhelmingly more frequently than the other. Of course both are taught, but the of ruling over a planet idea is extremely rare, while the idea of becoming like is something we hear in every lesson or talk almost.

You admit that they ate both taught. therefore they BOTH ARE TAUGHT BY THE LSD CHURCH. The frequency of theit teaching (as if you could make a measurement of it) does not change the fact that BOTH ARE TAUGHT.

I also referenced the importance of the extra-Biblical creeds and how they are revered at the same level as the Bible.

The Ecumenical Creeds are NOT "extra-biblical. without a doubt, you are making things up here. Please tell us which of the 12 statements of the Apostle's Creed is NOT supported by Scripture.

So it is not that LDS believe the Bible to be inerrant so much as the belief system of Evangelicals values the Bible a lot less than they like to admit.

Wanna try that sentence again?

I think you are forgetting that you are the one who decided to use this scripture to apply to this point, not me. I personally don't see that it adds much clarity to my claim. It is talking about the completeness of the Bible, not its accuracy or how much it should be valued. I really don't think it is all that relevant to this discussion.

Why are you trying to say that the passage from your own BoM says something different that the words say in plain English? Why do you try to mitigate the fact that a fool is a very nasty thing to say about anyone, but you want to say that your BoM does not call Bible Believers fools?????
2 Nephi 29:6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?

How can you have the gall to say that your "holy books" mean something different than what they say in simple English?

Originally Posted by proveallthings
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 think you are forgetting that you are the one who decided to use this scripture to apply to this point, not me. I personally don't see that it adds much clarity to my claim. It is talking about the completeness of the Bible,

You are bearing false witness against yourself here. Whether it is intentional or a result of being spiritually blinded I can not tell, but it makes it look as if you are making a cover-up, or else trying a derail. I am not accusing, but I surely am saying that the logical conclusions that can be drawn from this are serious..

 

[proveallthings]

Certainly you know that the State of Utah still has execution by a firing squad as a option? That is, it is the one method that “spills blood†that was enacted back when Utah became a State and reflect the blood atonement Doctrine instituted by the early LDS Church.

The operative word here is “optionâ€. Back at that time it was a choice of hanging or firing squad. Utah replaced hanging with lethal injection in 1980. This provided two choices to the condemned: firing squad or lethal injection. If the condemned failed to make a choice, lethal injection was to be employed.

You still are avoiding the issue of Christ’s atonement not being for those who commit murder and as to why it is not preached so much in your Church, is that the Doctrine has many problems with it. For instance, how could Paul or even King David have made it to Heaven as both of them at least were partially responsible for the deaths of others at one time in their lives? And, since Christ says in Matthew 5:21-22 that even in our anger towards someone , we are guilty of Judgment on the Commandment against murder-- all should have their blood shed—according to this doctrine.

This is a common misunderstanding of the doctrine. The doctrine was never applied to just anyone who committed murder. The Book of Mormon makes this very clear. In order to qualify for such a requirement, one must have an extraordinary exposure to the light and knowledge of God and the sin would have to be blatant enough to be outright rejection of that light. Saul, who became Paul, would definitely not be eligible for such a requirement.

It is more about a person rejecting Christ, than Christ rejecting that person. The doctrine was always preached with the understanding that only God could judge the necessity of such a personal sacrifice. Even the civil law offered an option, because it was between the offender and God only. It is impossible for any human to judge whether another human needs this degree of repentance. As I understand this, when it comes right down to it, when we are in Christ’s presence to be judged, it is we who judge ourselves. This doctrine is mercifully offered as a comfort for such people to feel they have done everything possible to re-accept Christ.

Yes, your Church believes in the fact that people supposedly get a second chance in the afterlife to accept or reject the Gospel of Christ.

It is not so much a second chance, as a chance at all, which other Christian belief systems completely miss.

It ties into the baptizing for the dead belief and supposedly points to the fact that worthy members can continue to progress towards perfection after they die. Absolutely NOT Biblical.

So you do not deny that the LDS view of the atonement is less limiting than your view of what the Bible teaches?

Faith versus works is really the topic.

Perhaps this is your problem, putting two virtues in competition with each other, creating a false dichotomy. The Bible teaches that faith without works is dead. That makes works a good thing. If you read the writings of Paul more carefully, you will discover that the works he criticizes are only self-righteous works, or works without faith. He is emphasizing the idea that works without faith are also dead.

When a Believer truly accepts the True Christ and their heart is right, those works follow—not so much in a rigid Obedience fashion but rather as a result of our Love for Him and being somewhat of a “new creation in Christâ€.

This is a good description of Mormon doctrine.

I know that the LDS Church teaches that no one has the Holy Spirit but themselves, but I find that the Holy Spirit prompts me often and I don’t keep a scorecard on.

This is another misunderstanding. Think about it. LDS missionaries emphasise over and over again that a non-member can only really know for themselves if the Book of Mormon is true by having it revealed to them by the power of the Holy Ghost. We believe that people of all faiths can be touched and influenced by the Holy Ghost. There is also the constant guidance of the Light of Christ, sometimes referred to as our conscience, that is available to all humans. As we obey the light and the Holy Ghost, the light gets brighter. I don’t keep a scorecard either.

The will of the Father is that we should believe on Him He sent—accept His Sacrifice in abiding Faith.

Aah, but what does that entail? What does “always abiding in faith†involve? Is it not true that to the extent that we “believe on Him He sent†to that extent we will keep his commandments? Christ said, “if you love me, keep my commandmentsâ€. Is it not the Father’s will to love Christ?

Your last few sentences here indicate you have a partial belief in the Grace of Christ and how we really never measure up.

Mormon doctrine says the only way we never measure up is if we reject Christ. We always measure up when we allow Christ to be on our team. Imperfection + perfection = perfection.

Glorify in Strong's concordance is listed as: to render, to esteem glorious, to honor and praise and also the meanings as they might apply to man are: to be boastful and bragging. Certainly on one hand while we are saying we are submissive to Christ, we hardly want to share in the Glory that is His and God's alone.

There is obviously more than one definition of the word glorify. You chose the one that does not work for the LDS attitude when we say that man can be glorified. Check out merriam-webster.com and notice definition 1b. It says, “to elevate to celestial gloryâ€. If you tried to understand at all what Mormons really believe, you would know that nothing in any talks by leaders or LDS literature, when understood in context, portrays the attitude you are trying to label us with.

 

[proveallthings]

You admit that they ate both taught. therefore they BOTH ARE TAUGHT BY THE LSD CHURCH. The frequency of theit teaching (as if you could make a measurement of it) does not change the fact that BOTH ARE TAUGHT.

Finally you get what I have been saying all along. This has never been an issue with me.

The Ecumenical Creeds are NOT "extra-biblical. without a doubt, you are making things up here. Please tell us which of the 12 statements of the Apostle's Creed is NOT supported by Scripture.

You are entirely missing the point. The Apostle’s Creed and especially the Nicene Creed are not found in the Bible. They are an interpretation of the Bible. That is what extra-biblical means. There are many extra-Biblical writings that are in perfect harmony with the Bible, such as the Book of Mormon. Yet those who created and use these creeds claim to believe that the Bible is complete. The simple fact that they would feel the need for such creeds indicates their obvious lack of confidence in the completeness of the Bible. A giant contradiction.

 Originally Posted by proveallthings  
"So it is not that LDS believe the Bible to be inerrant so much as the belief system of Evangelicals values the Bible a lot less than they like to admit."

Wanna try that sentence again?

We are discussing here the claim I made that LDS value the accuracy of the Bible as much or more than Evangelicals. You assumed that that meant LDS must believe the Bible to be flawlessly accurate. I am merely pointing out that although LDS don’t believe it is perfect, we are confident in its accuracy. Evangelicals claim they believe it is perfect, but show by their actions that they have no more confidence in its accuracy than LDS do. Perhaps less.

I think you are forgetting that you are the one who decided to use this scripture to apply to this point, not me. I personally don't see that it adds much clarity to my claim. It is talking about the completeness of the Bible, not its accuracy or how much it should be valued. I really don't think it is all that relevant to this discussion.

Why are you trying to say that the passage from your own BoM says something different that the words say in plain English? Why do you try to mitigate the fact that a fool is a very nasty thing to say about anyone, but you want to say that your BoM does not call Bible Believers fools?????

Hypocrite is even a nastier word, yet Jesus did not hesitate to use it in describing those in the mainstream of His religion in His day. The Lord is using it here more circumstantially. In other words, those who believe this are only called fools in that belief, not complete fools. And they are not called fools for believing in the Bible, as you infer, but only for believing that the Bible is all of God’s word, which is an idea that is not taught in the Bible. Basically, He is saying it is a foolish idea. A person who believes a foolish idea is a fool in that moment of foolish belief.

Now, instead of dwelling on how offended you should be for being called a fool, perhaps you should consider the reasons the Lord gives for it.

Originally Posted by proveallthings
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 think you are forgetting that you are the one who decided to use this scripture to apply to this point, not me. I personally don't see that it adds much clarity to my claim. It is talking about the completeness of the Bible, not its accuracy.

You are bearing false witness against yourself here. Whether it is intentional or a result of being spiritually blinded I can not tell, but it makes it look as if you are making a cover-up, or else trying a derail. I am not accusing, but I surely am saying that the logical conclusions that can be drawn from this are serious..

I'm sorry, but there is no contradiction here. You are just trying too hard to misunderstand.

 

[George Muller]

Let's start with the Blood Atonement Belief for starters:
Brigham Young, the second president of the Mormon Church, publicly preached what is known as the "blood atonement" doctrine—i.e., that a man might be killed to save his soul. His sermons were published in the Church's own newspaper, Deseret News, and were later reprinted by the Mormons in England in the Journal of Discourses. There can be no question, therefore, regarding the accuracy of the printed reports. In one sermon, President Brigham Young made these comments:
There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness ... and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone, for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world. I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine, but it is to save them, not to destroy them....
And furthermore, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood.... I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit.... There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, of a calf, or of turtle doves, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man. That is the reason why men talk to you as they do from this stand; they understand the doctrine and throw out a few words about it. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 53-54; also published in the Deseret News, 1856, page 235)


President Joseph Fielding Smith has written: "Man may commit certain grievous sins ... that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ .... Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf."

It is reported that some use this teaching to justify the murder of those who turn from mormonism, or got in the way of their lust for women and power?

Thomas Coleman murder

An example used by some to illustrate the alleged practice blood atonement is the 1866 murder of the former-slave, Thomas Coleman (or Colburn), who was in good standing as a member of the LDS Church. As Mormon historian D. Michael Quinn has documented, Coleman was apparently secretly courting a white Mormon woman. At one of their clandestine meetings behind the old Arsenal (on what is now Capitol Hill in Salt Lake) on December 11, Coleman was discovered by "friends" of the woman. The group of vigilantes hit Coleman with a large rock. Using his own bowie knife, his attackers slit his throat so deeply from ear to ear that he was nearly decapitated, as well as slicing open his right breast, in what some believe was a mimicry of penalties illustrated in the temple ritual. Not all of Coleman's wounds correlated with the temple ritual, however, since he was also castrated. A pre-penciled placard was then pinned to his corpse stating, "NOTICE TO ALL N*****S - TAKE WARNING - LEAVE WHITE WOMEN ALONE." Even though it was the middle of winter, a grave was dug and Coleman's body was buried. The body was disposed of in less than three hours after its discovery. Less than twelve hours after that, Judge Elias Smith, first cousin of Joseph Smith, appointed George Stringham (a Mormon ruffian and vigilante with ties to Porter Rockwell, Jason Luce, and William Hickman) as the foreman of the Coroner's Jury; they briefly met and summarily dismissed the case as a crime that was committed either by a person or by persons unknown to the jury, abruptly ending all official inquiry into the bizarre murder.[

 

[By Grace]

You are entirely missing the point. The Apostle’s Creed and especially the Nicene Creed are not found in the Bible. They are an interpretation of the Bible. That is what extra-biblical means.

No, it is YOU who are missing the point, and the point is that EVERY statement in the Apostles Creed is backed up by one or more verses in the Bible..


The term 'extra-Biblical' can refer to two things:

• Information or content outside the Bible. Thus, any form of knowledge or experience which gives us information concerning God, His Work or His Will, which is not directly quoted in scripture
• Teachings, concepts and practices claimed to be supported by or taught in the Bible, but which are based on incorrect interpretation. In hermeneutics, the study of the methodological principles of interpretation this is known as "eisogesis" (super-imposing a meaning onto the text), as opposed to "exegesis" (drawing the meaning out of the text). from http://www.apologeticsindex.org/110-extra-biblical

I suggest that you may be creating your own definition.

There are many extra-Biblical writings that are in perfect harmony with the Bible, such as the Book of Mormon.

Sadly, you are not jesting. the BoM is indeed perfect in this one aspect: it is a perfect example of the definition of the term, "extra-biblical"

Yet those who created and use these creeds claim to believe that the Bible is complete. The simple fact that they would feel the need for such creeds indicates their obvious lack of confidence in the completeness of the Bible. A giant contradiction.

Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
​

It is YOU, not me who is contradicting Scripture

You assumed that that meant LDS must believe the Bible to be flawlessly accurate.

CEASE PUTTING WRONG WORDS INTO MY POSTS!

Evangelicals claim they believe it is perfect, but show by their actions that they have no more confidence in its accuracy than LDS do.

CEASE YOUR GROSS AND ERRONEOUS GENERALIZATIONS.

Now, instead of dwelling on how offended you should be for being called a fool, perhaps you should consider the reasons the Lord gives for it.

Perhaps you should...............................

Your actions here are despicable! :angry:angry:angry