God in mormonism

[Netty]

You're getting to be a real mind-reader!

But guess what? I do agree with you on that.

@Netty and @Katzpur

I find myself not being able to agree with either of you here.

I know Katz is probably thinking, "What else is new?"

I feel that Church leader's "glazing over" of certain historical facts was not an attempt to hide or obscure anything. I see nothing wrong with it for two key reasons:

1.) Being a Church leader does not magically make a person a Church historian or apologist, nor does someone need to be a Church historian or apologist to become a leader in the Church. No one should talk about historical facts or events if they do not know them or have no evidence to validate them.

You can understand this cautious attitude when you consider all the "opinions" shared by past leaders that give the Church such grief today.

2.) Leaders of the Church are called to preach the Gospel and call people to repentance. None of these "certain aspects" of the Church's history should make or break someone's testimony or membership in the Church because they have little or nothing to do with the core, Spirit-witnessing truth of the Restoration of the Church and Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Basically, if the "news" of the Prophet Joseph Smith using a seer stone in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon crushes someone's testimony of the Book of Mormon, then they never really had a testimony of the Book of Mormon.

I feel if you are going to be a leader of a church then church history should be very important. You should know it back to front. I think it's contradictory excommunicate church historians, like Michel Quinn, for things the the church about 20 years later ends up admitting. I don't think church leaders take it seriously enough. And there are members that find it important, as well as it leaves the church vulnerable to people who want to poke pinholes in church history if the facts don't add up.

As far as the seer stone, coming out with an official story was important. There where contradictory stories being told about the translation of the Book of Mormon. I was taught that it was a pair of glasses called the erum and tnumbem (spell?) I even recall a picture of Smith in golden glasses with the plates before him. It was a relief to a lot of members to finally have an official story.

 

[Prestor John]

You're getting to be a real mind-reader!

I'll be guessing your weight next!

 

[Prestor John]

I feel if you are going to be a leader of a church then church history should be very important. You should know it back to front.

I vehemently disagree with this assertion.

Leadership in the Church should be based on personal worthiness, prophecy and revelation, not secular learning.

Joseph Smith barely had a sixth grade education, yet he was called to be the Prophet of the Restoration. A Prophet who never recorded which day the First Vision or the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood took place.

Church leaders are not called to research or establish historical facts. They are called to preach the gospel, perfect the saints and redeem the dead. Leave history to the historians.

I think it's contradictory excommunicate church historians, like Michel Quinn, for things the the church about 20 years later ends up admitting..

Michael Quinn was excommunicated for embracing his homosexual attractions, not for any of his historical works.

I don't think church leaders take it seriously enough.

What exactly are you referring to here?

And there are members that find it important, as well as it leaves the church vulnerable to people who want to poke pinholes in church history if the facts don't add up.

If the Spirit of the Lord has testified to your mind and heart that Joseph Smith was a Prophet and that the Book of Mormon and the Church are true...how are supposed historical inconsistencies based on limited knowledge "important"?

People are going to attempt to poke whatever they can in the Church no matter how well versed Church leaders are in history.

As far as the seer stone, coming out with an official story was important.

I personally don't believe that to be true. What was important to me was the confirmation of the Spirit.

The Book of Mormon could have been transcribed from the writing on the wall of a bus station bathroom for all I care. I cannot deny the Spirit of the Lord that confirmed the book's truthfulness to me.

There where contradictory stories being told about the translation of the Book of Mormon. I was taught that it was a pair of glasses called the erum and tnumbem (spell?) I even recall a picture of Smith in golden glasses with the plates before him. It was a relief to a lot of members to finally have an official story.

The Prophet Joseph Smith used various methods of translation. The Urim and Thummim were used as well as the seer stones and I believe he even translated some unaided.

As the Prophet grew spiritually his ability became stronger and he did not always need to rely on certain tools as he once had.

 

[Katzpur]

I'll be guessing your weight next!

Over my dead body.

 

[Watchmen]

The Church hid or glossed over the truth of its own history. That damages its credibility.

That said, the paraphrasing of Church teachings from certain posters in this thread is ridiculous and inaccurate.

 

[Prestor John]

The Church hid or glossed over the truth of its own history. That damages its credibility.

Let's talk specifics.

Would you mind mentioning a specific example that we can discuss?

I think we differ on what we feel the purpose of the Church is.

That said, the paraphrasing of Church teachings from certain posters in this thread is ridiculous and inaccurate.

Like what?

I didn't read the entire thread so I am not aware.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You can say what you want. I am more than willing to acknowledge the things about Mormonism that are different from traditional Christianity. What I object to is your attempts to paraphrase what what we have said we believe, using verbiage that is insulting and ridiculing -- for example: "Believers will propagate endless children on private planets throughout the universe, that women will be perpetually bearing children in a heaven where the men serve as gods, etc." If that's what you genuinely think we believe, you need to start from square one to understand our beliefs. My feeling is that you don't understand our doctrines because you don't want to understand our doctrines. Furthermore, I think it's pretty evident to anyone who has been following your discussion with Clear and Orontes that you are in over your head intellectually. You claim they patronized you. I'd say they probably just got tired of repeating themselves while you ignored what they said time and time again. You have some very definite opinions about Mormonism, and you know as well as anybody else that none of them are likely to change. Initially, I really did think you were sincere in wanting to understand, but when you continue to misrepresent our beliefs, even after they've been explained to you by several different individual over a period of time, it's hard to continue to give you the benefit of the doubt. Here's how I addressed your statement (in boldface) the first time, and here's how I'm going to address it again:

"Propagate endless children" and "perpetually bearing children": No woman bears children in heaven. Copulation, conception and pregnancy are functions unique to mortal women. It's the way a mortal infant comes into existence. There is no reason in the world for anyone to imagine a heaven where millions of women are wandering around eternally pregnant. The Bible tells us that God, our Father in Heaven is the father of our spirits and that we are His offspring. It says absolutely nothing about how a spirit is created, but the creation of spirits is something that gods and goddesses obviously are capable of. We believe that if we are able to progress eternally, we may someday have the godly powers to create new spirits.

"Private planets": I can't count the times I've heard people say, "Mormons believe that when they die, they'll be given a planet to rule over." That's utter nonsense. If I ever attain goddesshood (and it's something that, quite frankly, I don't even really even know that I'd want), nobody's going to give me my own little "private planet" to play with. If my husband and I become like god, we will be creators ourselves. God will have given us the same power to create as He has, and I would imagine that we'll want to use those powers to further glorify Him.

"Men serve as gods": Okay, so what else would they serve as -- goddesses? Men serve as gods and women serve as goddesses. They become that together, not separately. They will be equal partners, and neither will rule over the other.

Very respectfully, and sincerely, why I find these straw men, and I'm not saying that to insult you, is that Mormons believe they must earn salvation, evangelicals do not. Mormons believe Joseph Smith was a prophet who saw the Father in his youth, Jesus seems to make contrary statements in John, etc. There are enough issues to have issues. Again, feel free to correct me in this rather than arguing about propagation. Since the word of God says, "Remember your faithfulness to a thousands generations," I personally have no problem with post-Rapture propagation or heavenly marriage, and I'm unsure other evangelicals feel differently. Rather, we see an emphasis on childbearing for women here that seems unwieldy, etc.

 

[BilliardsBall]

"Latter-day Saints see all people as children of God in a full and complete sense; they consider every person divine in origin, nature, and potential. Each has an eternal core and is “a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents.” Each possesses seeds of divinity and must choose whether to live in harmony or tension with that divinity. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all people may “progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny." Just as a child can develop the attributes of his or her parents over time, the divine nature that humans inherit can be developed to become like their Heavenly Father's."

That's pretty much word-for-word what evangelicals believe, too. But it sure seems like Orontes and Clear understand theosis differently, that believers will become like Heavenly Father through refinement over billions of years, while evangelicals receive the perfection of Christ unto salvation at the Rapture. Also, I take statements like those in the Decalogue to mean there is one God. I will never be God or even a god. I'm trying to think of another denomination of Christianity that says over a period of a long time, believers will become gods. I cannot think of any. And I think the website statement you quoted is not on point--or else Orontes and Clear are misrepresenting what you believe! I've already said on another thread, "Christians believe in theosis." I will never become a god, however.

 

[Katzpur]

Very respectfully, and sincerely, why I find these straw men, and I'm not saying that to insult you, is that Mormons believe they must earn salvation, evangelicals do not.

That is absolutely false, and you've been told this at least a dozen times already. The intentional ignorance of evangelical Christians when it comes to Mormonism is positively mind-boggling.

 

[Katzpur]

I will never become a god, however.

Not at the rate you're going, you won't.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is absolutely false, and you've been told this at least a dozen times already. The intentional ignorance of evangelical Christians when it comes to Mormonism is positively mind-boggling.

I sincerely, honestly, beg your pardon, but do Mormons really believe in assurance? I've been told by Orontes and Clear--they have been more than insistent on this point--that momentary trust in Christ is insufficient for salvation, and that we need to be continually doing our part to be a certain kind of person to hope for Heaven.

And Katzpur, I say this also, kindly, gently, you made no response (yet) to the fact that website quoted hides the doctrine--Mormons will become divine gods. Exodus 20: No other Gods before me. No matter how we translate or interpret "before" the answer must become the same. Why do you think no evangelical or Catholic or Protestant sect teaches the eventual godhood of believers? I know already why I think they don't, but I'd like to know more from your perspective.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not at the rate you're going, you won't.

I'm having trouble understanding if you are being facetious or if this is a Mormon doctrine I don't know about, that Mormons may inhibit other people from becoming a god. Mormons, uniquely among Christians (I think) can be baptized for others to promote them, so is this statement referring to the reverse?

 

[Prestor John]

I sincerely, honestly, beg your pardon, but do Mormons really believe in assurance?

That depends on what you mean by "assurance"

I've been told by Orontes and Clear--they have been more than insistent on this point--that momentary trust in Christ is insufficient for salvation, and that we need to be continually doing our part to be a certain kind of person to hope for Heaven.

We believe that God will not force anyone to Heaven. He will only give us what we want. We exhibit what we want through the type of life we live.

If we choose to live a life in darkness and sin and have no care for God and His commandments, then there is a place prepared for us outside of the light of God and His Kingdom.

If we choose to live a life that is devoted to God and we try to align our personal will with his, then we will receive a place in His presence and we will grow to become like Him.

And Katzpur, I say this also, kindly, gently, you made no response (yet) to the fact that website quoted hides the doctrine--Mormons will become divine gods.

This teaching is not unique to Latter-Day Saints and it is taught in the Bible.

Exodus 20: No other Gods before me. No matter how we translate or interpret "before" the answer must become the same.

This verse is obviously in reference to idol worship, not in the deification of God's children.

The Israelites had just left Egypt, a land of idol worship, and were about to inherit other lands where idol worship was prevalent.

The Israelites even built themselves a golden calf and eventually fell victim to many idol worship practices, causing many plagues and death among them.

You are forcing this false interpretation of this verse just so you can try to fight against a doctrine that is found elsewhere in the Bible.

Why do you think no evangelical or Catholic or Protestant sect teaches the eventual godhood of believers?

Because there was a Great Apostasy from the truth after the deaths of the Lord's original Apostles.

Early Christianity taught that all worthy men and women could become like God through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I know already why I think they don't, but I'd like to know more from your perspective.

They don't because they believe that God is dead and they reject His oracles that He sends to them today.

They are blind shepherds leading a blind flock.

I'm having trouble understanding if you are being facetious or if this is a Mormon doctrine I don't know about, that Mormons may inhibit other people from becoming a god. Mormons, uniquely among Christians (I think) can be baptized for others to promote them, so is this statement referring to the reverse?

Katspur is referring to your inability to be honest and that if you continue down this destructive path then you will never realize your potential of becoming like your Father in Heaven.

There are no ordinances in the LDS Church that would hinder someone from becoming like their Father in Heaven.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That depends on what you mean by "assurance"

Assurance is the doctrine that having trusted in Christ via free will, one is certainly assured of going to Heaven/the new Earth that comes, and missing Hell.

We believe that God will not force anyone to Heaven. He will only give us what we want. We exhibit what we want through the type of life we live.

I agree with the first two sentences. The third sentence, “we exhibit what we want through lifestyle” seems to be more concretely addressed in the scriptures as “we exhibit what we want via trusting in Christ”. Put another way, Jesus saves, not Jesus saves and I also save. Or put another way, I’m aware that there are over 150 NT verses teaching salvation comes through trusting Christ, besides a few verses that seem at first reading to say one can be lost by improper behavior. But the NT is also clear that salvation has nothing to do with our behavior and everything to do with Christ’s, for example, “the free gift arose following many trespasses… also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous” as opposed to “through the obedience of the many, these many will be made righteous.”

This verse is obviously in reference to idol worship, not in the deification of God's children.

Respectfully, you have an argument from silence in that passage. We can talk about divinity and God’s people elsewhere in the Bible, sure, if you like.

But people have taken that Exodus verse at face value before Christianity existed because the Hebrew for “before me” includes “in the presence of God, near His face, before, behind, toward, in front of,” etc. No other gods in the universe. One infinite being in one space of infinity. Judaism is known worldwide by all persons as a thoroughly monotheist faith because no Jewish interpreter has ever taken the Hebrew to mean anything but “no gods but me, period”.

And if there are heavenly marriages, how would I honor a spouse who is god without disobeying Exodus 20, no other gods…?

Because there was a Great Apostasy from the truth after the deaths of the Lord's original Apostles.

Early Christianity taught that all worthy men and women could become like God through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

A great apostasy could not exempt all persons everywhere from divine knowledge. There are too many statements in both testaments that God reveals truth to persons who seek Him via His spirit for all denominations and all persons to be unenlightened between circa 30 CE and circa 1827 CE. And what early Christians taught were commentaries on the Bible. We are indeed partakers of the divine nature and have the Spirit indwell us. But God living in me now, in this world, doesn’t make me divine any more than I’m a god presently, now.

They don't because they believe that God is dead and they reject His oracles that He sends to them today.

They are blind shepherds leading a blind flock.

I can take some of the above for say, atheists, but you seem to be saying that people who reject the LDS understanding of theosis, people who spend an hour on their knees weekly or who witness their Christian faith to hundreds of persons a year, are missing out on true revelation and so on. The Bible has too many statements that the Word of the Lord is sufficient for me to accept that sincerely. I’m reminded of an in-person conversation I had with a Mormon on mission a while ago. I said, “You say I’m a Christian and I believe I am saved. What benefit will I gain from working with you, joining you?” They responded, “You will learn how to be more accurate in your work”. I believe that God gave us all we need before the 1800’s to be accurate in life and faith, something I believe still more because of Bible statements that I have all I need, for example, “and if there is any other command, it is summed in this saying, ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’” I remember thinking, “I’m saved. Why would I want to start again doubting my assurance to work to try to be saved once again?”

Katspur is referring to your inability to be honest and that if you continue down this destructive path then you will never realize your potential of becoming like your Father in Heaven.

There are no ordinances in the LDS Church that would hinder someone from becoming like their Father in Heaven.

Two thoughts—if there is something specifically that leads you to think I’m dishonest (other than I’d like to see LDS doctrine in the Bible before accepting it) I’d like to know. It is an honest searcher who seeks doctrines within the scriptures, not a dishonest one.

The other thought is that the Bible quotation “be ye like your Father” in Heaven says it is necessity for salvation and acceptance, that is, theosis, that is, the power of the Spirit to indwell and cleanse us today—not a future something that will happen after long efforts in the next age.

Again, I’m seeking conciliation and understanding, not an argument between us, and I’ll go if you feel I’m being disruptive and non-productive, but I’d rather we both make our points gently and courteously from the Bible. I disbelieve certain LDS doctrines because I don’t see them in the Bible, but I’m not saying you are dishonest. When I read I’m this or that or I’m dishonest, it makes me honestly want to defend my character rather than leaving a thread of posts. Thanks for understanding.

 

[Prestor John]

Two thoughts—if there is something specifically that leads you to think I’m dishonest (other than I’d like to see LDS doctrine in the Bible before accepting it) I’d like to know. It is an honest searcher who seeks doctrines within the scriptures, not a dishonest one.

I would like to get my thoughts about your dishonesty out of the way before we go over the rest of your comment.

First, I’d like to clarify that my comment about you being dishonest was more about trying to explain what I felt was the motivation behind Katzpur’s comment, rather than my own personal judgement of you.

However, from a cursory glance at your comments I think I would still consider you to be dishonest. At least in regards to the LDS faith. Perhaps disingenuous would be more accurate. And I feel this way for these reasons:

1.) It is crucial that when trying to understand a different faith that you try to view the doctrine and principles of that faith through the perspective of the adherents of that faith.

Basically, you should try to interpret their faith with their interpretation, not your own. It is a matter of context.

For example, you interpret the Latter-Day Saint idea of a continued striving toward perfection as an attempt to earn salvation even though no Latter-Day Saint would interpret it that way. They consider it an act of obedience and humility to constantly emulate the example set for them by their Savior and Redeemer.

I have not seen any real attempt on your part to try to look at this idea from the perspective of a Latter-Day Saint, rather than your preconceived notions about LDS doctrine.

2.) You do not accept the answers to your questions.

You ask a question to get an answer, which members of the Church are glad to give, yet you use this as a precursor to debate.

If you honestly wanted an answer, you’d just accept the answers you receive rather than try to disprove them. You do not have to agree with the answer, just accept that it is the answer.

I can surmise from Katzpur’s comments about you that you have been asking the same questions over and over. Either you are dissatisfied with the answers you have received or you just want to sate some kind of argument lust.

Either way, if you simply accepted the answers given you would not irritate the members of the Church on this site.

3.) The moment you place limits or parameters on a discussion and demand that the only resources that can be referenced are those that you are comfortable with or that you consider true, you are being dishonest.

Why should a Latter-Day Saint’s response only include passages from the Bible?

A core principle of the LDS faith is that there was a need for a Restoration and that the Bible does not contain all the revealed Word of God.

Why would you require any Latter-Day Saint to answer questions about their faith without being able to consult the totality of their Standard Works?

Would it be honest for a Latter-Day Saint to ask you to explain the tenets of your faith, yet demand that you only use the first five books of Moses to do so?

It’s like getting a guy to agree to run a race, but then you shoot him in the leg right before it starts.

I’m sure there are more, but we will get into those more when I get into your comments. I just wanted to address these first and get them out of the way.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I certainly appreciate your detailed response and your candor.

I welcome the opportunity to learn so please don't assume all my questions are pre-debate prep. Not at all. But if I'm assumptive, you must remember there are Mormon missionaries active on the campus where I work, and I speak with them often. Also, I've asked Orontes and Clear certain questions, and their responses likewise indicated that Mormons do not believe in the assurance of the believer. So how might you be assured you are on the path? There seem to be only two Christian stances regarding the security of the believer, being 1) Jesus saves once forever 2) Jesus starts a relationship that the believer may terminate by desire and/or behavior. I agree 100% with you, that we are to emulate and imitate the Savior in love and obedience, yes. But when someone tells me "Jesus put me on the path, and it's up to me to not stray from the path," it would be normative and reasonable for me to place them in the camp #2, not camp #1. If I'm misunderstanding, please let me know, but again, if it's "How can we be saved unless we imitate Him in humility and love," it's still not "I was saved by Jesus fully and forever."

I was not insisting we speak only from the scriptures, but rather, that I would find it more precise to speak from the scriptures when discussing what I believe rather than commentaries from a century or more after, commentaries that are simply ruminations on the scriptures. As a fundamentalist, it is of very limited appeal to tell me that some church father might have believed theosis in a certain way--but you have my full, reverent attention when you prove your points from the scriptures. Of course you and I can chat about anything from the LDS works as you mentioned, and again, this is why I've said to Orontes and Clear more than once, "I want to know what you think re: the scriptures and LDS canon and other works, not 3rd century expositors."

Thanks!

 

[Watchmen]

I certainly appreciate your detailed response and your candor.

I welcome the opportunity to learn so please don't assume all my questions are pre-debate prep. Not at all. But if I'm assumptive, you must remember there are Mormon missionaries active on the campus where I work, and I speak with them often. Also, I've asked Orontes and Clear certain questions, and their responses likewise indicated that Mormons do not believe in the assurance of the believer. So how might you be assured you are on the path? There seem to be only two Christian stances regarding the security of the believer, being 1) Jesus saves once forever 2) Jesus starts a relationship that the believer may terminate by desire and/or behavior. I agree 100% with you, that we are to emulate and imitate the Savior in love and obedience, yes. But when someone tells me "Jesus put me on the path, and it's up to me to not stray from the path," it would be normative and reasonable for me to place them in the camp #2, not camp #1. If I'm misunderstanding, please let me know, but again, if it's "How can we be saved unless we imitate Him in humility and love," it's still not "I was saved by Jesus fully and forever."

I was not insisting we speak only from the scriptures, but rather, that I would find it more precise to speak from the scriptures when discussing what I believe rather than commentaries from a century or more after, commentaries that are simply ruminations on the scriptures. As a fundamentalist, it is of very limited appeal to tell me that some church father might have believed theosis in a certain way--but you have my full, reverent attention when you prove your points from the scriptures. Of course you and I can chat about anything from the LDS works as you mentioned, and again, this is why I've said to Orontes and Clear more than once, "I want to know what you think re: the scriptures and LDS canon and other works, not 3rd century expositors."

Thanks!

But don't 3rd century expositors inform one about the intent of the scriptures close in time when they were written? That's like saying a judge should look at a law in a vacuum and without considering legislative intent.

 

[Prestor John]

I certainly appreciate your detailed response and your candor.

That’s refreshing. Someone who does not take every opportunity to cry “offended” or make someone feel guilty for saying what is on their mind.

These last times truly are as Isaiah saw, for he said that there would be “scorners”,

“That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.” (Isaiah 29:21)

This PC age is a fulfillment of long foreseen prophesy. How easily people are offended today is sickening. They also go out of their way to destroy the lives of men and women who have opposing opinions. They lay traps to try and ensnare people in their twisting war of words. Their pursuit for “equality” has caused them to set aside justice.

Isaiah has them pegged.

I believe that Isaiah 29 also talks about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the Restoration of Christ’s Church in the latter days.

I welcome the opportunity to learn so please don't assume all my questions are pre-debate prep. Not at all.

That’s a relief.

But if I'm assumptive, you must remember there are Mormon missionaries active on the campus where I work, and I speak with them often.

That’s good. You should always talk to the missionaries.

However, while they are on their missions they dedicate themselves to studying and preaching the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and not much more.

Don’t expect them to be perfectly versed in LDS Church history or in what we call “deep doctrine”. That is not their calling. They are free to study those things both before and after their mission, but not during.

Also, I've asked Orontes and Clear certain questions, and their responses likewise indicated that Mormons do not believe in the assurance of the believer.

Yes, we do not believe exactly as you do on that subject. We believe that certain things are most definitely assured, but some things are not.

So how might you be assured you are on the path?

The Holy Spirit of God can help everyone make an accounting of their progress.

Basically, you should ponder on the covenants you have made and if you have faithfully kept them. The Spirit will then direct you, through feelings of joy or shame or otherwise, if you have been faithful and if you are worthy or if you need improvement.

There seem to be only two Christian stances regarding the security of the believer, being 1) Jesus saves once forever 2) Jesus starts a relationship that the believer may terminate by desire and/or behavior.

We believe that through the Fall of Adam and Eve two deaths entered this world. Both physical and spiritual death.

We believe that the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ overcomes both of these deaths.

He offers Mankind salvation from physical death through a universal bodily Resurrection for all.

He also offers salvation from spiritual death (separation from God the Father) by suffering all the punishments for all of our sins. With His suffering, we are able to repent of our sins and change our ways.

Even though the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ offers all of us the opportunity to overcome the effects of the Fall we do not believe that that was the only reason for the Atonement.

We believe that the Atonement can also cause us to become more like the Lord Jesus Christ. We become more like Him as we make sacred covenants with Him, strive to be faithful to those covenants by following His example and keeping His commandments.

Becoming like our Lord Jesus Christ (and thus His Father) is what we call exaltation and it is difficult for some members of the Church to differentiate between salvation (overcoming the effects of the Fall) and exaltation (becoming like our Father in Heaven) because to achieve exaltation someone must first obtain salvation.

Both salvation and exaltation would be impossible for anyone to receive if it were not for the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ, His constant guidance and our reliance on His grace.

I agree 100% with you, that we are to emulate and imitate the Savior in love and obedience, yes. But when someone tells me "Jesus put me on the path, and it's up to me to not stray from the path," it would be normative and reasonable for me to place them in the camp #2, not camp #1.

There are some things that are assured us regardless of what we do and then there are some things assured us only when we keep our covenants.

A covenant is a two-way promise between us and our Father in Heaven. If we are faithful to our half of the promise, then He is bound to keep His half of the promise. If we are unfaithful, then He is not bound to keep His half and we have no assurance or promise.

If I'm misunderstanding, please let me know, but again, if it's "How can we be saved unless we imitate Him in humility and love," it's still not "I was saved by Jesus fully and forever."

We are all assured a bodily Resurrection (thus gaining victory over the grave), where our spirits and physical bodies will be reunited, never to be separated again. These bodies will be glorious and not subject to death, pain, sickness, injury or age.

We are all also assured to eventually be forgiven of all our sins (thus gaining victory over Hell), exempting those who commit the sin against the Holy Ghost, which is unpardonable. However, for everyone else, when and how they will be forgiven depends on their performance in this life.

The Book of Mormon talks about this at great length and explains how universal the effects of the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ are. I’d like to quote (a rather large portion) from a discourse delivered by Jacob, the son of Lehi and younger brother to Nephi,

“For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfil the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs be a power of resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason of the fall; and the fall came by reason of transgression; and because man became fallen they were cut off from the presence of the Lord.

Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more.

O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.

And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness.

O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape from the grasp of this awful monster; yea, that monster, death and hell, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit.

And because of the way of deliverance of our God, the Holy One of Israel, this death, of which I have spoken, which is the temporal, shall deliver up its dead; which death is the grave.

And this death of which I have spoken, which is the spiritual death, shall deliver up its dead; which spiritual death is hell; wherefore, death and hell must deliver up their dead, and hell must deliver up its captive spirits, and the grave must deliver up its captive bodies, and the bodies and the spirits of men will be restored one to the other; and it is by the power of the resurrection of the Holy One of Israel.

O how great the plan of our God! For on the other hand, the paradise of God must deliver up the spirits of the righteous, and the grave deliver up the body of the righteous; and the spirit and the body is restored to itself again, and all men become incorruptible, and immortal, and they are living souls, having a perfect knowledge like unto us in the flesh, save it be that our knowledge shall be perfect.

Wherefore, we shall have a perfect knowledge of all our guilt, and our uncleanness, and our nakedness; and the righteous shall have a perfect knowledge of their enjoyment, and their righteousness, being clothed with purity, yea, even with the robe of righteousness.

And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment-seat of the Holy One of Israel; and then cometh the judgment, and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God.

And assuredly, as the Lord liveth, for the Lord God hath spoken it, and it is his eternal word, which cannot pass away, that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy are the devil and his angels; and they shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end.

O the greatness and the justice of our God! For he executeth all his words, and they have gone forth out of his mouth, and his law must be fulfilled.

But, behold, the righteous, the saints of the Holy One of Israel, they who have believed in the Holy One of Israel, they who have endured the crosses of the world, and despised the shame of it, they shall inherit the kingdom of God, which was prepared for them from the foundation of the world, and their joy shall be full forever.

O the greatness of the mercy of our God, the Holy One of Israel! For he delivereth his saints from that awful monster the devil, and death, and hell, and that lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment.

O how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it.

And he cometh into the world that he may save all men if they will hearken unto his voice; for behold, he suffereth the pains of all men, yea, the pains of every living creature, both men, women, and children, who belong to the family of Adam.

And he suffereth this that the resurrection might pass upon all men, that all might stand before him at the great and judgment day.

And he commandeth all men that they must repent, and be baptized in his name, having perfect faith in the Holy One of Israel, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God.

And if they will not repent and believe in his name, and be baptized in his name, and endure to the end, they must be damned; for the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, has spoken it.” (2 Nephi 9: 6-24)

 

[Prestor John]

Now let me make the main points clear,

1.) We believe that everyone regardless of their actions in this life (even those who commit the unpardonable sin) will receive a bodily Resurrection through the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ.

2.) We believe that everyone regardless of their actions in this life (exempting those who commit the unpardonable sin) will eventually be forgiven of all of their sins, either in the flesh or in the spirit and will eventually enter into the Kingdom of God.

3.) We believe that how we perform in this life will affect the type of Resurrection we receive and will also affect where we will be allowed to go and what we will be authorized to do within God’s Kingdom. This is in reference to the “Three Degrees of Glory” you may have heard about. The Celestial, Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms within God’s Kingdom and also exaltation, or becoming like the Father.

Salvation from both physical and spiritual deaths are assured to us all through the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ unless we commit the unpardonable sin.

When and how we are forgiven of sin depends on how we perform in this life.

What type of Resurrection we receive and where we will be allowed to go and what we will be allowed to do in God’s Kingdom are also affected by our performance in this life.

Those who commit the unpardonable sin will receive a bodily Resurrection, but they will not be allowed to enter into God’s Kingdom and they will be cast out into Outer Darkness.

I was not insisting we speak only from the scriptures, but rather, that I would find it more precise to speak from the scriptures when discussing what I believe rather than commentaries from a century or more after, commentaries that are simply ruminations on the scriptures.

I was actually referring to Church leaders that lived and taught before the compilation of the Bible. Many of whom were contemporaries of the original disciples of Christ. They often spoke of the deification of Man which agrees with the LDS understanding of it.

As a fundamentalist, it is of very limited appeal to tell me that some church father might have believed theosis in a certain way--but you have my full, reverent attention when you prove your points from the scriptures.

I understand your position, but I do not agree with it.

I believe that the original disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ received pure unsullied truth from Him, therefore, the closer we get to that truth, the purer it will be.

I believe that many changes happened within the Church and also within the scriptures from the time that the original Apostles died and around the time of the compilation of the Bible.

Of course you and I can chat about anything from the LDS works as you mentioned, and again, this is why I've said to Orontes and Clear more than once, "I want to know what you think re: the scriptures and LDS canon and other works, not 3rd century expositors."

Thanks!

Sounds good. You are welcome.

 

[Whateverist]

"Propagate endless children" and "perpetually bearing children": No woman bears children in heaven. Copulation, conception and pregnancy are functions unique to mortal women. It's the way a mortal infant comes into existence. There is no reason in the world for anyone to imagine a heaven where millions of women are wandering around eternally pregnant. The Bible tells us that God, our Father in Heaven is the father of our spirits and that we are His offspring. It says absolutely nothing about how a spirit is created, but the creation of spirits is something that gods and goddesses obviously are capable of. We believe that if we are able to progress eternally, we may someday have the godly powers to create new spirits.

"Private planets": I can't count the times I've heard people say, "Mormons believe that when they die, they'll be given a planet to rule over." That's utter nonsense. If I ever attain goddesshood (and it's something that, quite frankly, I don't even really even know that I'd want), nobody's going to give me my own little "private planet" to play with. If my husband and I become like god, we will be creators ourselves. God will have given us the same power to create as He has, and I would imagine that we'll want to use those powers to further glorify Him.

"Men serve as gods": Okay, so what else would they serve as -- goddesses? Men serve as gods and women serve as goddesses. They become that together, not separately. They will be equal partners, and neither will rule over the other.

If you don't mind I'd like to try to get clearer on what mormons believe. Do you really envision an afterlife in which the gender one has as a human makes an important difference in what you become next, gods or goddesses. You seem to find the idea of women going on giving birth in the afterlife ridiculous. But aside from the birthing function, what else is there to set women apart from men? Could you say more about the different roles you envision for boy gods and girl gods?