1. 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?

Discussion in 'Same Faith Debates' started by Katzpur, Oct 16, 2005.

  1. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,694
    Ratings:
    +6,349
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Actually, I think they knew full well that we were created. None of their comments imply otherwise.


    With a couple of minor differences in wording, I'll go along with that.
     
  2. SPLogan

    SPLogan Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Messages:
    185
    Ratings:
    +22
    So you're also a Calvinist? :sarcastic
     
  3. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,694
    Ratings:
    +6,349
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    So now only Calvinists believe God is supreme?
     
  4. SPLogan

    SPLogan Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Messages:
    185
    Ratings:
    +22
    Sorry for drifting off topic.

    Ye are gods! Heresy or truth? - my answer: yes

    g'night
     
  5. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,694
    Ratings:
    +6,349
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Yes? Well, that was clear as mud! :biglaugh:
     
  6. Deut 13:1

    Deut 13:1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,199
    Ratings:
    +84
    No, Eve changed the commandment that was told to her by Hashem, kind of like Christians with the majority of scripture.
     
  7. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    If you cannot be convinced of the actual sexual intercourse from post #63":

    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."

    If the paternity were allegorical, it would not require sexual intercourse. Literal father means literal sex. I don't see how they could be more clear.
     
  8. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    Better have a heart to heart with Jonny on this one. He's a tenth generation Mormon who is having a hard time with it.
     
  9. SoyLeche

    SoyLeche meh...

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    7,518
    Ratings:
    +881
    Religion:
    LDS
    From the Gospel according to SoyLeche:

    God has a body, but it is an exhalted, immortal body. That means that his body doesn't require food or any type of nourishment. I wouldn't think that he needs to breath, sleep, or do any of the other things that we do in order to keep our bodies in shape. So, I don't understand why you think that in order to 'beget' children, he has to follow the same procedure that we do.

    God is, in fact, our Father. How we were begotten, however is unknown. It may have involved some sort of intercourse. So what? I don't quite understand how that is such a bad, or blasphemous thing. Do you think any less of your parents here on Earth because of the way they got you here?
     
  10. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    I will address this question in another thread. I will start it ASAP.
     
  11. jonny

    jonny Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,259
    Ratings:
    +638
    Nice try, but they were referring to the concept of a Mother in Heaven, which I have never denied - not the idea that they have had sexual intercourse to create our spirits. She was agreeing with Katzpur, not you.
     
  12. jonny

    jonny Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,259
    Ratings:
    +638
    You could have saved yourself the time of looking that up because I'm pretty sure I had already posted it in the thread I created to discuss this subject.

    The question I have is why do you care about this so much. The only thing I care about is you spreading lies about Mormons to those who trust you to teach them truth. Do you really think that you are going to convince me to believe something that I don't believe? I really don't think it is important to know how our spirits were created. If they were created through sex, great. Heaven will be a lot more interesting. If they weren't, who cares?

    Also, I think you need a lesson between the differences in doctrine and beliefs/speculation.

    “Whenever new doctrines are to be introduced, they are first presented by the President to his counselors and then to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in a meeting of the council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. If unanimously approved, they are then presented to the membership of the Church at a general conference for a sustaining vote.”

    This is why I am free to believe what I want to on this subject. It is not in the scriptures and the doctrine has never been put before the church for a sustaining vote.

    Sorry Katzpur. I tried to start another thread on this, but I think yours has been officially hijacked.
     
  13. jonny

    jonny Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,259
    Ratings:
    +638
    Let me also add these comments:

    From B.H. Roberts

    “I do not think the world should require such perfection of us as to insist that our religious teachers always deliver the inerrant word of God! In any event it must be allowed by us that many unwise things were said in times past, even by prominent elders of the Church; things that were not in harmony with the doctrines of the Church; and that did not possess the value of scripture, or anything like it; and it was not revelation. Moreover, no revelation even becomes the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints until it is accepted by that Church by formal action; it must be accepted by official vote of the Church before it becomes the law of the Church."

    From Joseph F. Smith

    "It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by authorities of the church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted”

    From Harold B. Lee:

    “If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl Of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by the same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.”
     
  14. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,694
    Ratings:
    +6,349
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Wrong again, angellous. Was Mary Jesus' literal mother? Was she, in reality, pregnant with Him? Did she, in fact, give birth to Him? Or was she merely His "allegorical" mother?

    If Mary was Jesus' literal mother and conceived while remaining a virgin, it is entirely possible for God to have been His literal father without having had intercourse with her.
     
  15. Dentonz

    Dentonz Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Messages:
    234
    Ratings:
    +27
    It really doesn't matter to me what any theologians or whomever said. The Bible says in 1 John 3:2 "..now we are the sons of God, and it does not yet appear what we will be: but we know that, when he appears, we will be like him; for we will see him as he is."
     
  16. ALifetimeToWaitFor...

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    90
    Ratings:
    +14
    God is everything and nothing, as is everything.
     
  17. mormonman

    mormonman Ammon is awesome

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    365
    Ratings:
    +31
    How can you believe in a God that is there, but not really. God is an actual being. Guess what he looks like. He looks like you and I. He is a resurected and perfected being. I'ld love to say more, but it's past my bed time.
     
  18. Nehustan

    Nehustan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,208
    Ratings:
    +239
    I would have to say a resounding no on this one. My faith states that 'had there been other god's would they not have worshiped The God, Eloah/Allah?'

    This said tho' from a biblical perspective there is an understandable reason for the posting of this question.

    'The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?' John 10:33-35

    'I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High' Psalms 82:5
     
Loading...