• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ye are gods! Heresy or truth?

jonny

Well-Known Member
Bennettresearch said:
I am misunderstanding this?
Jonny said:
Could you explain this a little more? We believe that our spirits are eternal - is that what you're refering to?
Hello,

I hope I can clear this up. Let me know where exactly you have questions.

We believe our spirits are eternal, but that they were also created. How does this work?!? Mormonism rejects the idea that you can create something out of nothing. Even our spirits were created from something. I believe we (and I am guilty of this) use the term "created" when we should actually use the term organized. Joseph Smith said,

"The spirit of man is not a created being; it existed from eternity, and will exist to eternity. Anything created cannot be eternal; and earth, water, etc., had their existence in an elementary state, from eternity."

Also, he said this.

"Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it."

I should add that we believe that intelligence is the substance from which our spirits were created.

"In tracing the thing to the foundation, and looking at it philosophically, we shall find a very material difference between the body and the spirit; the body is supposed to be organized matter, and the spirit, by many, is thought to be immaterial, without substance. With this latter statement we should beg leave to differ, and state the spirit is a substance; that it is material, but that it is more pure, elastic, and refined matter than the body; that it existed before the body, can exist in the body, and will exist separate from the body, when the body will be mouldering in the dust; and will in the resurrection, be again united with it."
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Just to add to what jonny has said, "intelligence," when used is this context, can best be defined as "light and truth." So, we believe that "light and truth" are eternal in nature. God "created" our spirits by organizing "light and truth."
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
On that note, Katzpur, I found an Encyclopedia of Mormonism in the library today. It is edited by Daniel E. Ludlow from Brigham Young University, and all of the senior editors are from BYU: Robert J. Matthews, Charles D. Tate, Robert Thomas, and only three of the other eleven editors are not from BYU. It was published in 1992 in New York by Macmillan Publishing Company.

Under the entry "GOD THE FATHER" on page 549 I quote,

"The Father, Elohim, is called Father because he is the literal father of the spirits of mortals (Heb. 12:9). This paternity is not allegorical. All individual human spirits were begotten (not created from nothing or made) by the Father in a pre-mortal state, where they lived and were nurtured by Heavenly Parents. These spirit children of the Father come to earth to receive mortal bodies; there is a literal family relationship among humankind. Joseph Smith taught, "If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves" (TPJS, p. 343). Gods and humans represent a single divine lineage, the same species of being, although they and he are different stages of progress. This doctrine is stated consisely in a well-known couplet by President Lorenzo Snow: "As man now is, God once was: as God now is, man may be."

Please compare this quote from previous posts of mine on this thread.

EDIT: We can see from the large number of LDS scholars who contributed to the articles and the editing of the work that my conclusions are not anti-Mormon propaganda, but actual Mormon teachings at least held by the editors of the publication. The quote from President Snow is adhered to and quoted in related articles.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
From the entry MOTHER IN HEAVEN, page 961

"Latter-day Saints believe that all people of earth who lived or will live are actual spiritual offspring of God the Eternal Father (Num. 16.22; Heb. 12.9). In this perspective, parenthood requires both father and mother, whether for the creation of spirits in the PRIMORTIAL LIFE or in the physical tabernacles on earth. A Heavenly Mother shares parenthood with the Heavenly Father. This leads Latter-day Saints to believe that she is like him in glory, perfection, copassion, wisdom, and holiness."

"Belief that there is a Mother in Heaven who is a partner with God in creation and procreation is not the same as the heavy emphasis on Mariology in the Roman [Catholic] tradition." (no kidding)

"Today the belief in a living Mother in Heaven is implicit in Latter-day Saint thought. Though the Scriptures contain only hints, statements from PRESIDENTS OF THE CHURCH over the years indicate that human beings have a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father"

The last quote illustrates very well why I have no doubt that there are some, if not most, Mormons/LDS followers who never hear about this stuff. However, this coming from a Mormon source written by BYU scholars indicates that people aren't just making this stuff up.

I did not make copies of the entire articles. The book is out there, so it should be available in libraries for you to look at.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
angellous_evangellous said:
"As man now is, God once was: as God now is, man may be."

Please compare this quote from previous posts of mine on this thread.
You see no difference between "As man now is, God once was..." (Lorenzo Snow) and "As God now is, man once was..."(angellous_evangellous)? :biglaugh: If you're dyslexic, just tell me, and I'll try to be more understanding. Otherwise, may I just suggest that you not further embarrass yourself by misquoting LDS leaders.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
angellous_evangellous said:
"Today the belief in a living Mother in Heaven is implicit in Latter-day Saint thought. Though the Scriptures contain only hints, statements from PRESIDENTS OF THE CHURCH over the years indicate that human beings have a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father."

The last quote illustrates very well why I have no doubt that there are some, if not most, Mormons/LDS followers who never hear about this stuff. However, this coming from a Mormon source written by BYU scholars indicates that people aren't just making this stuff up.
What are you talking about? Virtually every Mormon I know is aware of this doctrine.

I did not make copies of the entire articles. The book is out there, so it should be available in libraries for you to look at.
Thanks, but I have a copy of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism myself.

Now, if you would be so kind as to either stick to the topic of this thread in the future or refrain from posting at all. We're not talking about a Mother in Heaven in this thread, or at least we weren't until you decided to change the subject.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Katzpur said:
You see no difference between "As man now is, God once was..." (Lorenzo Snow) and "As God now is, man once was..."(angellous_evangellous)? :biglaugh: Read the words! Don't make them up!
They are variations on the same quote. I took my earlier quote from a different source.

You are detracting from the thrust of the post anyway. It undermines everything that you have written, and supports my posts, and it is from a Mormon source and fits the critera that you posted earlier. Would you like to deal with the article or not?
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
I'm still waiting for the quote that says that our spirits were created through "sexual intercourse." You are inferring something from these statements that has not been stated and telling me that our church teaches something that you cannot prove and that I believe something that I have denied.

I never denied that I believe we have a Mother in Heaven - what I denied is that the creation process that God uses is anything that could be comprehended by me or you. You seem to think that you can comprehend it, so go ahead and keep on thinking what you want to think, but the minute you start spreading lies around about Mormonism to people, I hope you will remember this scripture:

Psalm 119:164 said:
I hate and abhor lying.
angellous_evangellous said:
Please compare this quote from previous posts of mine on this thread.
I did compare the quotes and I was right. Was your previous source the same anti-Mormon book where you got this sexual intercourse nonsense? Why don't you site it if it is the basis of your entire argument? "Another source" really sounds like you are hiding something. I did a quick search on Google for your quote and it didn't come up a single time. You'd think that anti-Mormons would have jumped on that one and spread it all over by now! RF will be the first site to list it. You should be commended for bringing this statement to the light of the world. :)

angellous_evangellous said:
"As God now is, man once was; as God is man may be."
This doctrine is stated consisely in a well-known couplet by President Lorenzo Snow: "As man now is, God once was: as God now is, man may be."
Thank you for refraining from teaching me what I believe.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
angellous_evangellous said:
They are variations on the same quote.
Variations? :biglaugh: I'll say! You have twisted the quote to say exactly the opposite of what Lorenzo Snow originally said. And you call that a "variation"? I'm sorry, but that is, without a doubt, the most ignorant statement I've ever heard about LDS doctrine -- and, believe me, I've heard some doozies!

I took my earlier quote from a different source.
Undoubtedly. I can't believe I'm having to be so elementary, but I'm running out of options. Read the following two sentences:

John is Eric's father.
Eric is John's father.

Is the second statement merely a "variation" of the first?

You are detracting from the thrust of the post anyway. It undermines everything that you have written, and supports my posts, and it is from a Mormon source and fits the critera that you posted earlier. Would you like to deal with the article or not?
Sure. When you learn to read.
 

SPLogan

Member
jonny said:
Eve couldn't sin in the garden of Eden - she didn't know the difference between good and evil.
Genesis 2:16-17 - 16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

Genesis 3:2-5 - 2And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Eve clearly tells the Serpent what God told her not to do. She did it anyway because she was alured by the prospect of being "like God, knowing good and evil"
Remember that the word "know" is also a term used for sex in the Bible. Also note that the Serpent accused God of lying by saying "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." - the Serpent accused his creator, Yehweh, of lying to protect his autonomy!(as if God's autonomy was being threatened by His creation)
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
SPLogan said:
Eve clearly tells the Serpent what God told her not to do. She did it anyway because she was alured by the prospect of being "like God, knowing good and evil"
Let's not get too far off topic here.

Eve disobeyed God. Disobedience is wrong. But if Eve didn't know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, she could not be said to have sinned in the same sense she undoubtedly sinned after having gained that knowledge. Sin involves a conscious, willful decision to go against what one knows to be right.
 

Deut 13:1

Well-Known Member
SPLogan said:
Genesis 2:16-17 - 16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

Genesis 3:2-5 - 2And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Eve clearly tells the Serpent what God told her not to do. She did it anyway because she was alured by the prospect of being "like God, knowing good and evil"
Remember that the word "know" is also a term used for sex in the Bible. Also note that the Serpent accused God of lying by saying "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." - the Serpent accused his creator, Yehweh, of lying to protect his autonomy!(as if God's autonomy was being threatened by His creation)
I can't believe I need to point this out...

"Eve clearly tells the Serpent what God told her not to do", obviously she didn't comunicate this well enough... Read the two verses you posted, I'll even underline the important difference. Where in Bereishis (Genesis 2:16-17) does it say that G-d said not to touch it. This is what the serpant capitalized on and pushed her against the tree and told Eve, "As you didn't die from touching it, you won't die from eating it". That was Eve's fault, she clearly DIDN'T tell the serpant what G-d told had said, especially since she changed it.
 

SPLogan

Member
Katzpur said:
Sin involves a conscious, willful decision to go against what one knows to be right.
yes! and Eve made it clear that she understood that God told her not to eat the fruit. It is therefore not "right" to eat the fruit. She therefore willfully disobeyed. Her willful disobedience was the first sin because she wanted to be autonomous like God. The desire to claim some of God's autonomy is the essence of evil.

Therefore 'Ye are gods' is truth when referring to fallen humanity. (in the same way that the Golden Calf was a god) However, "I am a God" or "I am becoming a God" is complete heresy- and is the "gospel" ALL false religions. (naturally)
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
SPLogan said:
yes! and Eve made it clear that she understood that God told her not to eat the fruit. It is therefore not "right" to eat the fruit. She therefore willfully disobeyed. Her willful disobedience was the first sin because she wanted to be autonomous like God. The desire to claim some of God's autonomy is the essence of evil.
If she already understood the difference between good and evil before partaking of the fruit, what did she learn by eating it?

Therefore 'Ye are gods' is truth when referring to fallen humanity. (in the same way that the Golden Calf was a god) However, "I am a God" or "I am becoming a God" is complete heresy- and is the "gospel" ALL false religions. (naturally)
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. However, instead of just calling me a heretic, you might want to actually provide some evidence for your claim. I started this post by providing some for mine. You might want to start by addressing the four examples I listed in my OP: the scriptures, the early Church fathers, a Christian dictionary and a greata Christian theologian. I'd be far more impressed with an answer of some substance than I am with your accusations that my religion is false.
 

SPLogan

Member
Katzpur said:
If she already understood the difference between good and evil before partaking of the fruit, what did she learn by eating it?
She learned that she was a shameful sinner, justly deserving God's wrath. She wouldn't have known that had she not partaken.


Katzpur said:
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. However, instead of just calling me a heretic, you might want to actually provide some evidence for your claim. I started this post by providing some for mine. You might want to start by addressing the four examples I listed in my OP: the scriptures, the early Church fathers, a Christian dictionary and a greata Christian theologian. I'd be far more impressed with an answer of some substance than I am with your accusations that my religion is false.
I'm not sure where to start. I suppose you want me to explain why "I am God" is an evil thing to say and the "gospel" of all false religions... hmmm

Well, the Serpent pretty much summed it up with his LIE to Eve. He basically said "I am right, God is wrong- we should make our own moral standards"



Truly, the substance of truth is God Himself. So our words can only go so far in debate. Essentially, it's a matter of willingness to believe that God is sovereign, not us. The Holy Spirit is the only person who can change someone's will.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
SPLogan said:
I'm not sure where to start. I suppose you want me to explain why "I am God" is an evil thing to say and the "gospel" of all false religions... hmmm
Actually, you don't need to bother explaining why "I am God" is an evil thing to say because I agree with you. I'm not even sure I can think of a religion whose members would say that. I would just like you to address my opening post, which it appears you are having a difficult time doing.

Truly, the substance of truth is God Himself. So our words can only go so far in debate. Essentially, it's a matter of willingness to believe that God is sovereign, not us. The Holy Spirit is the only person who can change someone's will.
I'm not sure whether you have just misunderstood my perspective or have intentionally twisted my words. Maybe you're not even directing your remarks to me specifically. But in the event you are, I'll just clarify: I believe that God is sovereign every bit as much as you do. Got it?
 

SPLogan

Member
Katzpur-
About the church fathers you quoted earlier - they did understand one fundamental distinction between us and Yahweh. We have a birthday, Yahweh doesn't. We were created, He wasn't.


We are gods in the sense of being rulers over portions of His creation but only under the umbrella of His sovereign autonomy. There is ultimately one true God.
 
Top