I would like some information on your belief system

[DeepShadow]

Eh, I'd have to state for the record that none of the sources quoted are official church doctrine, and the Seer is especially suspect, written as it was during Pratt's period of excommunication for teaching false doctrine.

That being said, these don't go as far as many have into the field of speculation. Katzpur stated the issue quite well on another thread:

We believe that God has given all of His children (both LDS and non-LDS) the potential to become as He is someday. This doesn't mean that He will not still be our God, that we will be equal to Him or that we will no longer worship Him. Nor do we believe that we would be able to attain godhood by virtue of our own merits. Surely you believe that God is capable of doing anything He wishes, don't you? If He wants to make us gods or goddesses, I'm sure He both knows what He is doing and is able to do it.

Incidentally, the Latter-day Saints didn't invent this doctrine. It was taught in the ancient Church, as a number of quotes from the early Christian apologists will prove. Even the noted Christian theologian, C.S. Lewis, said much the same thing in his book "Mere Christianity."

“The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said."

 

[reyjamiei]

Eh, I'd have to state for the record that none of the sources quoted are official church doctrine, and the Seer is especially suspect, written as it was during Pratt's period of excommunication for teaching false doctrine.

That being said, these don't go as far as many have into the field of speculation. Katzpur stated the issue quite well on another thread:

You're right, I should have noted that in my post and I intended to but I failed to do so. But the sources quoted in my last post were only meant to show that the Doctrine of eternal pogression is taught in the Church and that Mormons do believe that God was once a man and that men can become gods. I found this excerpt from a Time Magazine article featuring an interview with Gordon B. Hinckley online that I'd like to add:

Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.

A: Yeah

Q: ... about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.

The Church said that President Hinckley's words were taken out of context.
http://www.irr.org/mit/hinckley.html
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/misc/misc09.html

 

[dan]

My question is this: who has a problem with this doctrine and why?

My experience has taught me that most who take issue with this do so on the assumption that it somehow robs God of His perfection and glory. This has always confused me. If you father a child who grows up to cure cancer thanks to your teaching doesn't your credibility as a father increase exponentially? If your child grows up to be a loser you are blamed. Our progress brings Him glory. Our ascension to Godhood glorifies Him with every step up. How does this make Him less of a God?

 

[reyjamiei]

My question is this: who has a problem with this doctrine and why?

My experience has taught me that most who take issue with this do so on the assumption that it somehow robs God of His perfection and glory. This has always confused me. If you father a child who grows up to cure cancer thanks to your teaching doesn't your credibility as a father increase exponentially? If your child grows up to be a loser you are blamed. Our progress brings Him glory. Our ascension to Godhood glorifies Him with every step up. How does this make Him less of a God?

I don't have a problem with it. If the prophets/leaders of the Church teach it, it is Church doctrine unless they are teaching false doctrine.

 

[dan]

I don't understand why others can't accept that.

 

[Mister Emu]

I don't understand why others can't accept that.

Dan,

I am sorry that I did not check up on this, a reason for non-acceptance will be put forth in the Biblical debates section presently.

 

[dan]

Right on.

 

[Sk8Joyful]

"As man now is, GOD once was. As GOD is, man may become" :no:

where did Jesus teach that evolution in the Bible??

Our ascension to Godhood
glorifies Him with every step up.

"Our ascension to Godhood " - where did Jesus teach that evolution in the Bible?

 

[uss_bigd]

Hi,

I am a christian (born again). Some Mormons showed up at my youth group once and it got rather heated between one of them and my youth leader, he made some good points using the bible and his own common sense but she defended her faith quite well, she has only come back once since then. Even though I wouldn't convert I would be interested to know more of what she believes in. I know about the whole thing with Joseph Smith and the Gold tablets but that seems to be only the surface, if anyone can help me learn more so that I can have a good debate with her and be able to actively see her point of view and know about her beliefs to defend my own it would be much appreciated. I am NOT trying to convert her I simply want to know more about her beliefs.

God Bless,

Alien Youth

Do you beleive that christianity meaning following Christ?

Do you beleive that Christianity is based and must be based on biblical doctrine?

What is your take on extrabiblical references?

 

[Katzpur]

"Our ascension to Godhood " - where did Jesus teach that evolution in the Bible?

LOL! Well, I've never heard it described as "evolution" before. The Latter-day Saints are frequently accused of believing that they can, at some point in the future, become "Gods." Understandably, to many who do not fully understand our doctrine, the mere idea is out-and-out heresy.

But, let's start by changing “Gods” to “gods.” That lower-case “g” makes a world of difference in the meaning of the word. Next, before we really get started, let's clear up two big, big misconceptions:

(1) We do not believe that any of us will ever be equal to God, our Eternal Father in Heaven. He will always be our God and we will always worship Him.

(2) Nothing we could possibly do on our own could exalt us to the level of deity. It is only through the will and grace of God that man is given this potential. And "with God, nothing is impossible."

We believe, as you may know, that ours is a restoration of the very Church Jesus Christ established during His ministry here on earth. It would follow, then, that we believe we are teaching the same doctrines as were taught then and accepted by Jesus’ followers. Throughout the New Testament, there are indications that this doctrine (known as deification or exaltation) is not one the Latter-day Saints invented, but that the earliest Christians understood and believed it, as well.

Romans 8:16-17, 2 Peter 1:4, Revelation 2:26-27 and Revelation 3:21 are the four I like best. Through these verses, we learn that, as children of God, we may also be His heirs, joint-heirs with Christ, even glorified with Him. We might partake of the nature of divinity and be allowed to sit with our Savior on His throne, to rule over the nations.

Now, if these promises are true (as I believe they are), what do they all boil down to? To the Latter-day Saints, they mean that we have the potential to someday, be “godlike.” One of our prophets explained that "we are gods in embryo." If our Father is divine and we are literally his "offspring", as the Bible teaches we are, is it really such a stretch of the imagination to believe that he has endowed each of us with a spark of divinity? Kittens grow up to be cats. When puppies reach maturity, they become dogs. What should children of God hope to become if not gods?

Finally, there is considerable evidence that the doctrine of deification was taught for quite some time after the Savior’s death, and accepted as orthodox. Some of the most well-known and respected of the early Christian Fathers made statements that were remarkably close to the statements LDS leaders have made. For example:

In the second century, Saint Irenaeus said, “If the Word became a man, it was so men may become gods.” He also posed this question: “Do we cast blame on Him (God) because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and than later as Gods?” At about the same period of time, Saint Clement made this statement: “The Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.” And Saint Justin Martyr agreed, saying that men are “deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest.” Some two centuries later, Athanasius explained that “the Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods. He became man that we might be made divine.” And, finally, Augustine, said, “But He that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. For he has given them power to become the sons of God. If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.” Even today, a similar doctrine is taught in some of the Eastern Orthodox churches.

Even the noted Christian theologian, C.S. Lewis, said much the same thing in his book "Mere Christianity."

“The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said."

Finally, according to The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, “Deification (Greek theosis) is for Orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, according to the Bible, is made in the image and likeness of God…. It is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become god by grace.”

So, the "Mormons" really didn't come up with this doctrine. We only restored that which had been lost for many, many years.

 

[madhatter85]

Good question. I've often wondered this myself, particular in light of the fact that the governing body of the Church, since its organization, has been a Quorum of Twelve Apostles. I am relatively certain that not all of the twelve men who saw and held the plates ultimately held the office of Apostle, although several of them did. I think that most Christians are aware that there are certain numbers which appear to have a special significance to the Lord. Not only were there twelve Apostles, but there were also twelve tribes of Israel. In the temples of the Church, the baptismal font rests on the backs of twelve scultped oxen -- representing the twelve tribes.

DeepShadow may be able to shed some additional light on this subject. We'll see what he has to say.

one interesting thing is that some of these men whow ere of the 3 and 8 witnesses became apostate from our church, but even then they never recanted thier statements and never said that they did not see the plates.

 

[Mister Emu]

We might partake of the nature of divinity

As a note, this is where LDS belief diverges from the traditional understanding of Theosis, as I have it... Theosis does not inolve the assuming of the divine essence.

I have a couple of questions(that I am sure I have asked before )

I'll start with:
What is the mormon view of the Eucharist?

 

[Starfish]

"As man now is, GOD once was. As GOD is, man may become" :no:

where did Jesus teach that evolution in the Bible??



"Our ascension to Godhood " - where did Jesus teach that evolution in the Bible?

The Book of Revelation
3: 4-5 "Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.
"He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
3: 21 "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."

 

[Sk8Joyful]

LOL! Well, I've never heard it described as "evolution" before.
The Latter-day Saints are frequently accused of believing that they can, at some point in the future, become "Gods."

They are not accused of believing that. They actually DO believe that.

I'll come back to this tomorrow. Need to go sleep now. Am due on the ice :yes: for practice... in a few hours.

Thanks for engaging! this discussion...

Annie

 

[Sola'lor]

Hey you must have been really deep in those forum pages.

"As man now is, GOD once was. As GOD is, man may become" :no:

where did Jesus teach that evolution in the Bible??

"Our ascension to Godhood " - where did Jesus teach that evolution in the Bible?

It's not evolution. It's the natural way of trhings. Children naturally to grow up to be what their parents are. A catipillar grows up to be a butterfly. Even though it has no indications of being one in teh beginning.

Besides:

Psalms 82: 6
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Matthew 5:48
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

 

[Sola'lor]

As a note, this is where LDS belief diverges from the traditional understanding of Theosis, as I have it... Theosis does not inolve the assuming of the divine essence.

I have a couple of questions(that I am sure I have asked before )

I'll start with:
What is the mormon view of the Eucharist?

the only thing I know about the Eucharist is that it looks like a misspelling of christ.

 

[Katzpur]

They are not accused of believing that. They actually DO believe that, falsehood.

Annie, if you don't know the difference between a debate forum and a DIR forum, I suggest that you either read the forum rules or PM a moderator. It is a direct violation of the rules for you to call my beliefs false on this forum. Please remove your remark and post it on an appropriate forum if you want to continue this discussion.

 

[Sk8Joyful]

Annie,
if you don't know the difference between a debate forum and a DIR forum

what's a "DIR"-forum?

Please remove your remark and post it on an appropriate forum, if you want to continue this discussion.

No problem I readily deleted the one word you chose taking offense over. Is the rest Acceptable to you now?

 

[Sk8Joyful]

Annie,
if you don't know the difference between a debate forum and a DIR forum

I thought I understood the rules correctly, but then again - what's a "DIR"-forum?

Please remove your remark and post it on an appropriate forum, if you want to continue this discussion.

No problem I readily deleted the one word you chose taking offense over. Is the rest Acceptable to you now?

 

[Katzpur]

I thought I understood the rules correctly, but then again - what's a "DIR"-forum?

If you go back to the Home Page, you'll see a listing of all the forums on RF. One main section is called "Discuss Individual Religions." That's what DIR stands for. Right under that heading is a note which states, "The following forums have religions listed within them. These forums are for learning and fellowship and NO DEBATING!" In other words, you are supposed to be able to ask questions on the various DIR forums, but you are not permitted to debate or even voice a contradictory opinion there. There is another forum called "Religious Topics" where debate is permissible. Since this rule is strictly enforced, I just thought I'd bring it to your attention before one of the staff did.

No problem I readily deleted the one word you chose taking offense over. Is the rest Acceptable to you now?

Sure.