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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Someone who is not LDS finds the King Follett Discourse "wonderful"? I'm speechless (rather unusual for me).doppelgänger;844801 said:I know it's in Joseph Smith's King Follett sermon. It's wonderful. I only recently discovered it myself.
doppelgänger;844801 said:I know it's in Joseph Smith's King Follett sermon. It's wonderful. I only recently discovered it myself.
Joseph Smith taught, "Joseph Smith, incidentally, once preached a funeral sermon in which he taught, "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens." Another LDS prophet, Lorenzo Snow, whose well-known couplet ("As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.") is often cited by non-Mormons and Mormons alike when discussing this clearly controverisal topic.Latter Day Saints, or Mormons teach that God was once a man. I was wondering from what scripture does this teaching come?
Seriously though, it isn't LDS doctrine. It is a 'theory' at best that people have concluded from the doctrine of deification. It's fun to discuss, but one of those things that we'll have to wait until the next life to find out.
According to B.H. Roberts, a General Authority some years back: "The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly addcepted and endorsed by the Church in General Conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appear for our doctrine."If two prophets have taught it, how is it not doctrine, or how is it something that we will have to wait until the next life to find out?
Someone who is not LDS finds the King Follett Discourse "wonderful"? I'm speechless (rather unusual for me).
Ooh! The Zodiac.Joseph Smith taught, "Joseph Smith, incidentally, once preached a funeral sermon in which he taught, "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens."
I'll have to check it out. I'm curious to see where your thoughts led you.doppelgänger;844896 said:I found at least four fascinating ideas in that sermon. I unpacked it a bit in the "Trinity-Fact or Fiction" thread and have been planning a longer post on it when I get the chance.
Are you kidding? His whole life was a controversy.What other controversial sermons or writings of Joseph Smith are there?
Uh... if you say so, but you're going to have to help me out here, cause I'm not getting it.Ooh! The Zodiac.
That's interesting. So it has more to do with others will think than what comprises the whole truth.According to B.H. Roberts, a General Authority some years back: "The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone.
I don't think that's the point at all. How many of our unique doctrines are rejected by the world? Dozens of them, and yet we don't deny that they are, in fact, doctrines -- that we believe them, that we teach them, that God has revealed them. The idea that God was once a man may very well be true. The fact that it has not been canonized in no way implies that it's not to be believed. There is a huge difference between saying that something is not doctrinally binding and saying that it's false.That's interesting. So it has more to do with others will think than what comprises the whole truth.
Joseph Smith taught, "Joseph Smith, incidentally, once preached a funeral sermon in which he taught, "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens." Another LDS prophet, Lorenzo Snow, whose well-known couplet ("As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.") is often cited by non-Mormons and Mormons alike when discussing this clearly controverisal topic.
Let's look at the second half of President Snow's couplet: As God is, man may become. This is doctrine. In fact, it's a doctrine with a name: “Eternal Progression.”
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."
Romans 8:16-17, 2 Peter 1:4, Revelation 2:26-27 and Revelation 3:21 speak of the promises God has in store for the most faithful of His children. 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.” Another 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, it is entirely logical to assume that He has endowed each of us with a spark of divinity.
Now, let's move on to the first half of President Snow's couplet ("As man is, God once was..."), which more directly ties to your question. This statement, which (due to lack of actualy scriptural support) is not doctrinally binding upon the Latter-day Saints, is merely a logical extention of the second half. If we can progress eternally, it would make logical sense that God "became" God over a period of time. Most Christians would insist that this is a direct contradiction of what the Bible teaches. The Bible, however, is only a record of those things which took place after "the beginning." "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth..." Anyone who believes that God existed before He created the heaven and the earth will have a hard time explaining what He was doing before the creation of our universe took place. The Bible quite simply does not address the topic of what was doing before "the beginning," before the clock started ticking, so to speak. Latter-day Saints believe something about what God may have been doing in the trillions of years before He created our universe. It does not contradict anything the Bible has to say about God. It couldn't; it is impossible to contradict something that the Bible does not even mention.
I disagree. I believe they most certainly do.The Verses you mentioned do not in anyway hint that we may take part in the diety of Christ
Sorry, your statement makes no sense. Could you tell me how it is impossible to contradict something the Bible makes no mention of. I'm afraid I don't understand what you're getting at. The Bible doesn't say that the Earth revolves around the sun. Does this mean that, because we know it does, we believe something that contradicts what the Bible says?....and my point is this as you have said :"it is impossible to contradict something that the Bible does not even mention. " Yes. the bible does not mention.
I believe He did, and I mentioned four scriptures that I believe support this doctrine. Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain what you believe each of them to be saying. You might also want to address why you find it so offensive to think that God could make us into anything He wants. Or do you think that with God, some things really are impossible?But your prophets do. If this doctrine in mormonism is true, why didn't God relate them to any OT prophet? Or for that matter to ANY apostle Jesus had? Or why didn't Jesus himself say that we would be exalted to God-hood?
Clearly, you believe that everything God has ever told any of His prophets somehow found its way into the Bible. I don't believe that to be the case, and the Bible itself does not claim to be a complete record of God's dealings with mankind. As a matter of fact, it does say that if everything Jesus said or did had been written down, all of the books in the world could not contain it.It seems the prophets of mormonism came out of nowhere and made up a doctrine about God that was never held before by anyone who beleived in him, mainly becuase "the Bible does not even mention [it]" as you say.
God added to scripture, Jay. Who are you to say otherwise? By the way, I think I know what you're getting at when you say that we have "changed aspects of Jesus' birth." If I'm right in what I'm thinking, you'd better watch your step. You don't know what you're talking about.They add to scripture and create a totally different picture of God apart from Canon. They lay a whole new foundation to the Gospel of Jesus even changing aspects of his birth and his personage.
Yes, and Paul also told us that the foundation of Prophets and Apostles that Christ built His Church on should remain in place until we all came into a unity of the faith. He said that if it didn't, we'd be "as children, cast about by every wind of doctrine." He was right. In case you hadn't noticed, there are thousands of different flavors of Christianity today, no two teachings exactly the same doctrines. How many of them are led by prophets and apostles?Paul told us that we are to build onto the foundation already laid. For no one can lay any other foundation...but some go and lay another anyway...even creating a whole new Gospel. (1 Corinthians 3:11).
Well, I'll be darned. That's exactly what the Athanasian Creed says:Example being that; The Father is a God, The son is a god, and that the Holy Ghost is a god.
Again, you lost me. I believe every word of what those scriptures have to say. I see no contradiction, direct or otherwise. If you would find it useful, I'd be happy to quote from the Book of Mormon. I see no point in doing so, however, unless you were interested in actually understanding what we believe.Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble
1ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
1co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Mr 12:32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
If you want to start a new thread to try to discredit the prophets of my Church, please be my guest. Or are you determined to derail this one? It's your thread, so I guess it's your call.It seems that some would rather believe whom they call a prophet and reject or totally ignore certain scripture, than to see truth. Hence since the words of certain prophets are not founded on anything biblical, our discussion therefore are void unless those prophets are proven true or false.
Proving what? The majority of the people in the world are not even Christians. Since when is truth something decided by a majority vote?Whom the majority of Christians do not value or look on as Prophets i mind you.
I disagree. I believe they most certainly do.
Sorry, your statement makes no sense. Could you tell me how it is impossible to contradict something the Bible makes no mention of. I'm afraid I don't understand what you're getting at. The Bible doesn't say that the Earth revolves around the sun. Does this mean that, because we know it does, we believe something that contradicts what the Bible says?
I believe He did, and I mentioned four scriptures that I believe support this doctrine. Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain what you believe each of them to be saying. You might also want to address why you find it so offensive to think that God could make us into anything He wants. Or do you think that with God, some things really are impossible?
Clearly, you believe that everything God has ever told any of His prophets somehow found its way into the Bible. I don't believe that to be the case, and the Bible itself does not claim to be a complete record of God's dealings with mankind. As a matter of fact, it does say that if everything Jesus said or did had been written down, all of the books in the world could not contain it.
God added to scripture, Jay. Who are you to tell Him He has nothing more to say? By the way, I think I know what you're getting at when you say that we have "changed aspects of Jesus' birth." If I'm right in what I'm thinking, you'd better watch your step. You don't know what you're talking about.
Yes, and Paul also told us that the foundation of Prophets and Apostles that Christ built His Church on should remain in place until we all came into a unity of the faith. He said that if it didn't, we'd be "as children, cast about by every wind of doctrine." He was right. In case you hadn't noticed, there are thousands of different flavors of Christianity today, no two teachings exactly the same doctrines. How many of them are led by prophets and apostles?
Again, you lost me. I believe every word of what those scriptures have to say. I see no contradiction, direct or otherwise.
If you want to start a new thread to try to discredit the prophets of my Church, please be my guest. Or are you determined to derail this one? It's your thread, so I guess it's your call.
Proving what? The majority of the people in the world are not even Christians. Since when is truth something decided by a majority vote?
I believe He did, and I mentioned four scriptures that I believe support this doctrine. Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain what you believe each of them to be saying. You might also want to address why you find it so offensive to think that God could make us into anything He wants. Or do you think that with God, some things really are impossible?
Jay, I would enjoy hearing your comments on something the noted Christian theologian, C.S. Lewis, stated 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."
Do you hold him in the same negative light you hold the Latter-day Saints? His explanation of this doctrine pretty much mirrors ours.
That's exactly what he said! I don't think it's a bad thing. Milk before meat, after all. The israelites couldn't handle a higher law, so they were handed a lower law. This world can't handle the highest law, so a lower law (ie, what is ofificially doctrine) will have to suffice. Milk before meat, and we are, after all, trying to convert the world.I don't think that's the point at all.