Progression to Godhood — Mormonism’s God
The following quotes are from the LDS Church’s Achieving a Celestial Marriage Student Manual published by the Church Educational System, copyright 1976.
—
In the relationships of husband and wife and parent and child we begin to approach the divine calling of godhood. Our Heavenly Father and mother live in an exalted state because they achieved a celestial marriage. As we achieve a like marriage we shall become as they are and begin the creation of worlds for our own spirit children. (page 1)
—
God Became God by Obedience to Law
It was late afternoon as we sat in my office, but I felt the time had been well spent. He sat silently now, obviously contemplating the ramifications of the things we had been discussing…Finally he spoke…
[Student:] “Then what you are saying is that God became God by obedience to the gospel program, which culminates in eternal marriage.”
[Teacher:] “Yes. Do you realize the implications of this doctrine as far as you are concerned?”
[Student:] “I think so. If God became God by obedience to all of the gospel law with the crowning point being the celestial law of marriage, then that’s the only way I can become a god.”
[Teacher:] “Right.”
(page 4)
—
The Law Which Brings Eternal Life Is Temple Marriage
Law requires that certain objectives be accomplished if we are to become like God. Look at the chart at the bottom of this page.
Why is each step necessary in the acquisition of godlike attributes? Under each step list the thing gained which is necessary for godhood.
[The accompanying diagram is in the form of 8 steps: Birth, Faith in Jesus Christ, Repentance, Baptism, Gift of the Holy Ghost, Temple Marriage, Resurrection, Eternal Life.] (page 5)
—
…God is an exalted man who once lived on an earth and underwent experiences of mortality. The Prophet Joseph Smith refers to this as “the great secret.”…The progression of our Father in heaven to godhood, or exaltation, was strictly in accordance with eternal principles, ‘for he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.” (page 129)
—
GOD WAS ONCE A MORTAL MAN
He Lived on an Earth like Our Own
God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. (page 129)
—
He Experienced Conditions Similar to Our Own and Advanced Step by Step
Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, and mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point where He now is. (page 129)
—
…even as the infant son of our earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages of aeons, of evolving into a God. (page 130)
—
So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring. Only such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents have attained exaltation. (page 131)
Comments (180)
This obviously states that certain acts are indeed required to become a god, and it is also clear that some portion of the church felt strongly enough in this position to create a manual for it.
I am curious, though, is this manual published 32 years ago still followed today? If not, why not?
If so, can you still say that you are not a works based system given the actual requirements of certain acts to achieve godhood? Does this also mean that someone who is not married cannopt become a god, in spite of Paul's warning that marriage should only be for those who cannot "help" themselves?
Add to MichaelP's post the crummy example that Jesus gave us: if HE was married, HE kept it very well hidden (and wouldn't that be a revelation glitch on Heavenly Father's part, unless you want to go down the "many precious parts taken away….." conspiracy trail. The whole idea of earthly marriage playing this kind of role , with this kind of center stage importance flies in the face of the REAL DEAL: marriage to the LAMB of GOD, a marriage that's EQUALLY good for earthly married, single, widowed, divorced, etc. Once again the REAL DEAL is traded down for the "restored". Don't go for "curtain #2" people, God did not mumble in the bible, what HE offers in Christ is ENOUGH. Praise GOD for HIS generous wedding offer: HIMSELF.
I thank God each and every day that I am worshipping the true God that has *always* been God and not a resurrected man that "became or progessed" to become God…… How awesome it is to know that MY God did not progress to the point of becoming a "god" and is one of many "gods" but is the only true and living God and before Him never was there any and after Him there will be none…..This manual, which I have read and took a class on "celestial marriage" prior to getting married myself in the LDS temple…. teaches clearly that the mormon god was not god at one point but "became" or progresse to become god……
I pray daily that many LDS would come to know the real God, who is so awesome and unsearchable are His ways!
Praising Him!
gloria
MichaelP, my copy of Achieving a Celestial Marriage is the 1976 edition. I know there was also a 1992 edition which remained in use and available from the LDS Distribution Center for many years. The manual is no longer in print. I'm sorry that I don't know the year that use of the manual was discontinued. You ask a good question: Are the teachings found in that manual still true (according to Mormonism) today? I hope some Latter-day Saints weigh in on that.
Amen Germit! I'll take curtain #1. I don't know why anyone would want to be a god anyway. I think it's kind of funny that important people in the LDS faith have been recorded to say that they didn't think the religion taught that men can become Gods (Gordon B. Hinkley) yet there's all sorts of literature published by the Mormon church and even manuals about it! Either old Gordon was way under-studied about his own religious beliefs, or he was trying to cover it up–something about a teaching that the God we serve is really nothing special, just a glorified man–does horrible things for the conversion rates I'm sure. I think if people really knew a lot of this stuff they too would choose curtain #1…sadly too many people fall for the warm, fuzzy, family oriented church that bears a striking resemblance to Christianity. I'm sad for these people…
Here is my after-life advice to Mormons: If your spirit-children try to worship you in the afterlife, spank them and instruct them to instead worship the one true God!
I don't think that most LDS are so bent towards narcissism that they spend much time thinking about one day being a god/godess….that doesn't excuse the weird theology; I keep in mind that they are told/taught what to believe and expect, so I lay some of this at the feet of the MORG, granted we all choose whom we trust.
Hinckley didn't exactly say that they flat out DIDN"T teach eternal progression, his comment was more like a head scratching….."well…..I don't know if we say all that much about that…..we don't really get into it that much……blah,blah……" So it was more like a non-statement. He downplayed it, the kind of thing politicians and salespeople do all the time.
I don't think that most LDS are so bent towards narcissism that they spend much time thinking about one day being a god/godess….that doesn't excuse the weird theology; I keep in mind that they are told/taught what to believe and expect, so I lay some of this at the feet of the MORG, granted we all choose whom we trust.
Hinckley didn't exactly say that they flat out DIDN"T teach eternal progression, his comment was more like a head scratching….."well…..I don't know if we say all that much about that…..we don't really get into it that much……blah,blah……" So it was more like a non-statement. He downplayed it, the kind of thing politicians and salespeople do all the time.
Thank you for the post Sharon,
While the thought of becoming a god is wrong on so many levels, one thing strikes me as inconsistent within LDS teaching. Quoting from the post, "So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring."
My question is how does this square with the Mormon Belief that , "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be" (D&C 93:29). So how can you become the parent of something that cannot be created?
No worries at all. I too am curious their take on the issue.
Ralph,
Thank you for the answer, let me make sure that I have this straight. In LDS theology, God created the spirit and somebody/something else put the intelligence in? I hope that you can understand how this is a redefinition of creation. Changing it from creation out of nothing into organising and building out of pre-existing material. This doctrine would change not only the essence but also the nature of God. No longer do we have the omnipotent, omniscient, infinite God of the Old and New Testaments. We would no longer be the creatures of a sovereign God. We would be the product of a cosmic mystery.
If you can bear with me and answer another question from the LDS perspective. If celestial marriage is so important to a persons ultimate salvation why is it not in the Old and New Testaments? As Germit pointed out above Jesus was not married. There is no mention of a temple marriage ceremony in Leviticus or anywhere else that I can find. It seems logical that there should be some mention of this requirement.
Gundek,
That's the question, we do not know how these intelligences were organised into spirits. But just to clarify one thing, its the 'intelligence' that was not created, not the spirit. So maybe (my thoughts not doctrine) the spirit is formed somehow and this thing called 'intelligence' is placed into it – so the uncreated intelligence is then in the created spirit body. That's one possibility of how you can become the parent of something that cannot be created.
Think of children born in this life – the parents create the phtsical body and God puts the spirit into it. So the parents do not create the spirit, it's just put in. So the process is similar.
Just remember – my thoughts not LDS doctrine.
So when your child calls you father/daddy/etc are you going to spank them because they gave you the reverence and not your father?
No surprise that this was the next topic in line! For if one cannot fathom that they are the literal children of God, it only follows that they would not believe what their Father has in store for them. I can assure all here that Mormons are not waking up each day trying to become a god. The command to "repent all ye ends of the earth" is sufficient for the day.
Nevertheless, we rejoice in the great plan of our God laid from the foundation of the world and the Savior who made it all possible. If I am to "become a God" someday, I will certainly remember why it is that the Lord is reluctant to reveal His mysteries to such an unbelieving world.
If I have children in the afterlife (which I don't foresee although I'm open to the possibility of it happening in a new dynamic of existence that God introduces) I wouldn't have any problem with them calling me Dad. But even my children here on earth can call me Dad without worshiping me as a God.
Ralph, are you comfortable with the prospect of subjects under you crying out,
"Oh, Heavenly Father Ralph, Almighty God, Maker of Our Particular Heaven and Earth, Alpha and Omega, you alone are holy, you alone are wise, you alone are the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of our God Ralph! How unsearchable are Ralph's judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Ralph, or who has been his counselor? Or who has given a gift to Ralph that he might be repaid? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen."
You OK with that, Ralph?
But DOF, do you not think that the church produced a manual that clearly stated things that must be done to achieve godhood suggests that such a progression is, or at least was, a big deal in the church? I am sure this was not the only source giving progression such credence, too. The question is, and I think you answered part of it, is does the church still encourage you to become gods? Do they still teach you this? If not, why not?
I am still curious about marriage's role in acheiving godhood?
If I have children in the afterlife (which I don't foresee although I'm open to the possibility of it happening in a new dynamic of existence that God introduces) I wouldn't have any problem with them calling me Dad. But even my children here on earth can call me Dad without worshiping me as a God.
Ralph, are you comfortable with the prospect of subjects under you crying out,
"Oh, Heavenly Father Ralph, Almighty God, Alpha and Omega, you alone are holy, you alone are wise, you alone are the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, to you be honor and glory forever and ever. Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of our God Ralph! How unsearchable are Ralph's judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Ralph, or who has been his counselor? Or who has given a gift to Ralph that he might be repaid? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen."
You OK with that, Ralph?
If I have children in the afterlife (which I don't foresee although I'm open to the possibility of it happening in a new dynamic of existence that God introduces) I wouldn't have any problem with them calling me Dad. But even my children here on earth can call me Dad without worshiping me as a God.
Ralph, are you comfortable with the prospect of subjects under you crying out,
"Oh, Heavenly Father Ralph, Almighty God, Alpha and Omega, you alone are holy, you alone are wise, you alone are the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, to you be honor and glory forever and ever. Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of our God Ralph! How unsearchable are Ralph's judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Ralph, or who has been his counselor? Or who has given a gift to Ralph that he might be repaid? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. Holy Holy Holy, is the Lord Ralph Almighty, who was and is and is to come?"
You OK with that, Ralph?
I readily believe that 'becoming a god ' is not high on your list or even that this is not TODAY a prominent part of LDS theology. It sure seemed to command more of Joseph's attention, and that to me is significant. Maybe that's too radically different for today's prophet, I don't kow why what your founder thot major would fall into the periphery. You might want to rethink your statement about God revealing or not revealing HIS mysteries. Which of HIS mysteries did HE keep hidden during the NT period ?? You need to find a more sovereign God. Blessings, GERmIT
If I have children in the afterlife (which I don't foresee although I'm open to the possibility of it happening in a new dynamic of existence that God introduces) I wouldn't have any problem with them calling me Dad. But even my children here on earth can call me Dad without worshiping me as a God.
Ralph, are you comfortable with the prospect of subjects under you crying out,
"Oh, Heavenly Father Ralph, Almighty God, Alpha and Omega, you alone are holy, you alone are wise, you alone are the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, to you be honor and glory forever and ever. Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of our God Ralph! How unsearchable are Ralph's judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Ralph, or who has been his counselor? Or who has given a gift to Ralph that he might be repaid? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. Holy Holy Holy, is the Lord Ralph Almighty, who was and is and is to come!"
You OK with that, Ralph?
Gloria,
What wonderful words. I am not sure it can be stated any better. How wonderful it is that we have a God who has always been and will always be God. How wonderful that he is the only God, and how awedome that he loves us as his children. How wonderful that such a powerful being can humble himself to save us, and how humbling it is to us to know what our creator has done so that we might be with him.
As to the manual, I find it interesting that up to this point there is no talk about it from Mormons. The only discussion we have seen is defending the idea, however broadly or loosely, that progression exists, but it is not priority. I'd really like to know why they put it in a manual in marriage as a requirement to become a god if the progression is not a priority? It seems they are talking out of both sides of their mouth. Do you have any insights?
And welcome, and God Bless!
Alas, what we have here from the Mormon side of things is evidence of the condition of man which is rooted in autonomy and the desire to be a god. It's based on a false premise regarding man's purpose. DOF, your claim that we can't understand that we are literal children of God is really misrepresenting what we believe, and this misrepresentation is the cause of your perceptions. I think you are bringing this in from the other thread that addressed the topic of becoming sons of God.
Grace and Peace!
Gloria: the thot hit me as I read your post: you HAVE experienced something of a "progression" with your GOD, not that HE changed, but your understanding of HIM certainly did and does; what a JI-NORMOUS upgrade; you must feel like it's Christmas come early and often. Blessings on your, and my, every discovery of the real Jesus and Heavenly Father. GERMIT
The LDS say that the book of Mormon is the most correct book of all books and yet there is no mention of marriage in the temple or of eternal families or of eternal progression or temple endowment, etc. Why is that? "If" the LDS truly believe the BofM is ithe most correct book why does this book not teach or mention these LDS doctrines? The LDS teach that the temple ceiling is the "crowning" ordinance and yet the "most correct book" doesn't even mention it? As a christian, the Bible is my authority and the truths of our faith are found and documented in God's Word. Authentic Christians will not hold as "truths" teachings that are not found in the Word of God. I am thankful that God's word endures forever. I was always confused by conflictng teachings in the LDS church — their prophets contradict each other. How wonderful to know that God is not a God of confusion.
Praising Him,
gloria
Michael,
The LDS try to distance themselves from doctrines that are a bit controversial… when you approach them on these doctrines they will tell you that they focus on the doctrines of "faith repentence and baptism" and that these other doctrines are not of primal importance. That didn't work for me while I was LDS… because the "nature" of God is pretty important to understand! It should be a primal teaching. The LDS will say that Christians do not know about the person of God or Jesus…. and yet when you approach them about their doctrines on "who" their god is they do get a bit uncomfortable talking about the doctrine of eternal progression.
If these are the glorious truths restored by J. Smith why are the LDS not joy filled about the prospect of eternal progression???
Praising Him,
gloria
Thank you germit for your good wishes! All I can say is " I can see, I can see… I my chains are gone and I can see"! I praise God each day that He took me out of the deception…. 1 yr ago God did a 360 degree change in my life.. I was teaching Relief Society, attending the temple , etc and God revealed himself thru the Word…. I completed a 2 yr study of the Bible and when I finished the bible, I resigned from the LDS church. God did the work. My heart breaks for the LDS … they are truly worshipping a false jesus and false god… my heart's prayer is that they may come to know the JOY we have in Jesus and be released from the bonds they are under. Also I thank God for delivering my 10 kids out of the cult too! A miracle for sure! Now we are waiting for Him to complete the work He has begun on my husband. 48 yrs of brainwashing is not easy to dismantle overnight but God is able!! ~ gloria ~
Wow – that is something I would be uncomfortable with! How prideful of anyone to think they are worthy of worship…. how self righteous….
When I was LDS I was sooo uncomfortable with the idea of being a 'goddess' .. the very thought made me cringe…. I never met any LDS that were JOY fillled at the idea of being a god or goddess… and the women in particular detested the idea of sharing their husbands with other women…. in the words of one mormon woman I know " that is hell" not heaven!
Praising God I OUT!
gloria
in both the 1920 edition of the triple combination found in the very end of the book, and in the book, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. on pages 106-107.
Vision of the Celestial Kingdom.
On the twenty-first day of January, 1836, the First Presidency, and a number of presiding brethren in the Church, assembled in the Kirtland Temple where they engaged in the ordinances of the endowment, as far as it had at the time been revealed. After this was done the Prophet states that "All of the Presidency laid their hands upon me, and pronounced upon my head many prophecies and blessings, many of which I shall not notice at this time." "All of the Presidency" included Oliver Cowdery and Father Joseph Smith as well as the two counselors, Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams. Following this ordinance the following vision and revelation were givin to the Prophet, making known to him and through him to the Church one of the most important principles pertaining to the salvation of men
.
The heavens were opened upon us, and I beheld the celestial kingdom of God, and the glory thereof, whether in the body or out I cannot tell. I saw the transcendent beauty of the gate through which the heirs of that kingdom will enter, which was like unto circling flames of fire; also the blazing throne of God, whereon was seated the Father and the Son. I saw the beautiful streets of that kingdom, which had the appearance of being paved with gold. I saw Father Adam and Abraham, and my father and my mother, my brother, Alvin, that has long since slept, and maravelled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.
Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying-
REVELATION
.
All who have died without a knowledge of this Gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom, for I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts. And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability, are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven. D.H.C. 2:380-381.
Here are a few problems I find with this vision Joseph Smith had. Read over the requirements for salvation given by Bruce R. McConkie found in the book "Mormon Doctrine," under "Salvation."
The requirements given do not line up with this vision and do not line up with the teaching that you MUST BE MARRIED. According to this vision, God states through the Prophet Joseph Smith, Anyone who died without hearing the gospel, if they would have heard the gospel and believed it, would be allowed to enter the Celestial heaven. If this is in fact true, then why even bother doing Baptism for the dead Or getting married in the temple? I figure, if they would have believed, then they will be saved. Also, if this is true, why bother sending out Mormon Missionaries?
We also see Mormon Prophets both contradicting the Lord and confusing the people. If this vision is true, then we read about Prophets leading the LDS people astray. Here are a few examples. In the book, Achieving a Celestial Marriage, Student Manual, we read on page 131, under the title, (1-13) Exaltation Is Based on Celestial Marriage.
If you want salvation in the fullest, that is exaltation in the kingdom of God, so that you may become his sons and daughters, you have got to go into the temple of the Lord and receive these holy ordinances which belong to that house, which cannot be had elsewhere. No man shall receive the fullness of eternity, of exaltation, alone; no woman shall receive that blessing alone; but man and wife, when they receive the sealing power in the temple of the Lord, if they thereafter keep all the commandments, shall pass on to exaltation, and shall continue and become like the Lord. And that is the destiny of men; that is what the Lord desires for his children. (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 2:43-44.)
Cont,
These things are not only taught by Bruce McConkie and the Student Manuel, but also by the Prophet Joseph F. Smith. We also read in Achieving a Celestial Marriage, Student Manual, pp 30-31, a modern day parable given by the LDS PROPHET, Spencer Kimball. In short it states that if we are not married in the temple, we could be shut out of the 3rd heaven.
The Prophet Spencer Kimball in "Achieving a Celestial Marriage Student Manual, pg. 30, makes it very clear that we must do certain things to enter the temple to be saved. He gives a list of 6 things called, (TEMPLE RECOMMEND INTERVIEW). It says that when you are interviewed for a temple recommend you will be asked about:
1. Church attendance
2. Payment of tithes and offerings
3. Loyalty to Church leaders.
4. Moral cleanliness.
5. Overall faithfulness and worthiness.
6. Obedience to the Word of Wisdom.
Then we read in "Gospel Principles," pg. 125: WE MUST KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD. To make our repentance complete we must keep the commandments of the Lord (see D and C 1:32). We are not fully repentant if we do not pay tithes or keep the Sabbath Day holy or obey the Word of Wisdom. We are not repentant if we do not sustain the authorities of the church nor love the Lord and our fellow man.
Add to that pg. 241 of "Gospel Principles," eternal marriage is ESSENTIAL FOR EXALTATION (emphasis mine). Our exaltation depends on marriage. Then over on pg. 242, it says, "and in order to obtain the highest, a man MUST ENTER INTO THIS ORDER OF THE PRIESTHOOD [MEANING THE NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT OF MARRIAGE];" "and if he does not, he cannot obtain it" (D and C 131:1-3)
Now with all that said, how is it that Joseph Smith's brother does none of this, yet is saved in the Celestial Kingdom? Notice, Joseph Smith even states he marvelled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom.
We read in the Dictionary at Dictionary.com, the meaning of the word marvel is:
1. One that evokes surprise, admiration, or wonder. See Synonyms at wonder.
2. Strong surprise; astonishment.
v. mar·veled, also mar·velled mar·vel·ing, mar·vel·ling mar·vels, mar·vels
v. intr.
To become filled with wonder or astonishment.
If Joseph was surprised, it tells me that he did not expect to see his brother there. But why does his brother get special treatment? Please explain to me, why would I want to be an LDS member and do all the work required to enter the temple, and be taught the idea that I might not get into the highest heaven? If I read only the book, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, believe his vision to be true, and die, I believe I could enter the celestial heaven by default, without any works.
Does anyone care to explain why the LDS church is built on a foundation of sand and confusion? Rick b
180 Degree change :-p and praise be to God Gloria.
I think the doctrine of man becoming a god is on it's way out in the Mormon Church. It is certainly being downplayed and pushed aside, much like polygamy. It is a topic that the Mormon leadership does not want to address (G.B. Hinckley – "I don't know that we teach it.") and their membership does not want to address ( DOF on this blog "I can assure all here that Mormons are not waking up each day trying to become a god. The command to "repent all ye ends of the earth" is sufficient for the day.") Sometime, in the not so distant future, this doctrine will disappear completely from the consciousness of modern day Mormons and vanish quietly down the memory hole where it will live with together with Adam-God, deleted segments of the Temple Rituals, the eternal commandment of polygamy, and the ban on black priesthood. LDS doctrine is forever radically changing. I would not be surprised if in 30 – 40 years the entire system of secret temple rituals was done away with and the temples are opened up for all – the leadership changes that much and that fast. I can't remember exactly where it was, but the LDS church recently quietly removed references to "becoming a god" from one of their manuals for new converts, temple preparation, or something. As this belief fades the necessity for temple rituals will also fade and I think eventually be done away with or radically changed.
Mobaby: I think you are very much onto something with your post; I'm still new at understanding the Mormon perspective and culture but what you're saying rings true with me: for very PRAGMATIC reasons I think what you're saying will happen, the "becoming a God" thing is a crummy evangelistic intro. And the secret temple stuff also has outlived its usefullness. I'd say they will BOTH be dropkicked quietly as 'new' revelation is given and the LDS shift into something else that attracts more potential converts. Wtih our culture pushing globalism, ecumanism, and tolerance, these weird 'distinctives' will become vestigal parts to a Mormon past. That's my take. And of course, history (King Follett, etc) will quietly get rewritten and updated. GERMIT
Sharon and others: Sharon asked
"Are the teachings found in that manual still true (according to Mormonism) today ?"
Is this a fair question, in response to that question:
"Does it not depend on what God tells THIS YEAR's prophet and generation through revelation ??" I'm not trying to make the LDS seem more flexible than they really are, so I'm wondering aloud if my question is accurate or not , according to the LDS outlook.
Gloria,
As a person who has family and friends who are Mormons I try to understand their beliefs but the inconsistencies and contradictions in Mormon doctrines of progression and creation (among others) baffle me. It seems narcissistic to assume that the creature can in any way approach the Creator without the Mediator and the indwelling of the Spirit.
With the LDS view of becoming a god, I wonder how a Mormon would answer the first question the the Westminster Shorter Catechism? What is the chief end of man? Somehow I doubt the answer would be "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever." (1 Cor10:31; Rom 11:36; Psalm 73:25-28).
Thank God for the righteousness of Christ, no hope without it.
Gundek:
you wrote
It seems narcissistic to assume that the creature can in any way approach the Creator without the Mediator and the indwelling of the Spirit.
Actually, as far as I know the LDS very much believe that they need a Mediator and of course are very keen on the indwelling of the H.S. One huge difference (among many) is that they believe (though this apparantly isn't brought up much) that with this divine help, they can match and perhaps outstrip their parents (Father/Mother). This idea we see as absurd and heresy. For them, they see that as part of salvific promises (provided the right amount of obedience is there). I can only do a short post on this system, but I'm pretty sure there is an anthropomorphic principle (towards God) that is a key culprit in all this: trying to make what is true for human situations/parenthood, true for God and HIS children. WRONGO.
Their silence here is interesting. Maybe there could be many reasons for it, but it is interesting nonetheless.
I agree that the nature of God is pretty important, perhaps the most important thing. From some of the responses here, it seems that they are more concerned with following him, which to be fair, is a noble thing, but who he is often gets pushed to the side.
I am thankful you allowed God to work in your heart.
I have said this before at Mormon Coffee, and it is likely a very long way off, but sometimes I think in the future of Mormonism lies evangelican Christianiaty because of the exact trend you guys point out. They really do seem to abandon doctrine when it gets them out of favor, and a logical trajecgtory is to become essentially evangelicals.
I may be crazy with this idea, but I think it makes some sense…
thanks for the correction Germit,
You are correct I, and I should have said, "It seems narcissistic to assume that the creature can in any way approach the [power of the] Creator…"
I am not sure that I have ever heard of a Mormon speaking of Christ as a Mediator with God or for that matter the need of a mediator. But this seems to add to the inconsistencies in their doctrine. What is His role for the Mormon as a mediator? Does He function as the Prophet, Priest, and King? If so what is the need of the LDS priesthood and system of prophets? Or is Christ seen as the perfect sacrifice an atonement for our sins bringing an end to the need for temple worship?
Interesting, I would like to learn more about the LDS view on the need for a mediator and how this works with their view of the priesthood and the role of prophets.
As we can see from history, the LDS Church may slowly drop and let die some of the more blasphemous/not socially acceptable teachings such as mere men can become gods and create and rule their own planets and be worshiped by their spirit children. However, they are always preaching works righteousness – that men must work their way to salvation. Salvation by grace through faith in the crucified and resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is the only way to eternal life. Trying to work your way there shows that you are depending on your own merits to gain a right standing before God and the Bible is clear, this is not the path to the Heavenly Father. I am afraid that even if the Mormon leaders give up more and more of the doctrines that are eons away from Christianity, they will retain this one spiritually deadly doctrine.
Gloria – It is great to hear how God has worked in your life. I pray that individuals in the LDS Church eyes would be opened to the truth of Jesus and God – and seeing someone like yourself on here shows that it does happen. I know that many Mormons when they find out the truth about Joseph Smith and the history of the LDS Chruch they think ALL of Christianity is based on lies and deception – and it just isn't so. There is the truth of Jesus Christ that has been passed on faithfully from generation to generation and He does transform lives. Thank you for sharing your inspiring story!
Touché. Mormons seem to not like to think about it, but if we are really to become "like Heavenly Father", then receiving such praise is a logical implication Mormons would be wise to consider. But maybe that does not seem to bother Mormons quite so much, after all, they do sing "Praise to the Man", after all. Which would be more offensive to a Mormon (and I'm asking this sincerely), that one can be the equal of God, or that one can be the equal of Joseph Smith, or Thomas S. Monson?
Perhaps Mormons have a ready answer. If so, let us hear it. I would be grateful to be corrected. It does me no good to misrepresent y'all's religion. As it is now, with a couple of comments only from Ralph and DOF, the silence is deafening.
Nate
Germit,
Your statement "One huge difference (among many) is that they believe (though this apparantly isn't brought up much) that with this divine help, they can match and perhaps outstrip their parents (Father/Mother)." is totally incorrect. If you go through all of the LDS lesson manuals and all of the posts by LDS on Mormon Coffee, we teach and believe that we will never 'match' nor 'outstrip' Heavenly Father. We will always be 'subservient' (For want of a better word) to Him.
Gundek,
You misunderstood a small part, maybe it was my example or writing. God created the spirit and placed the intelligence in it – no one else did.
There are some possible hints at Celestial marriage in the Bible – one of them is Job. He was given twice what he had before the trials except family-wise. He only received one wife and the same number of children as he previously had. We LDS teach that this is double what his previous family was because his other children were 'waiting; in the Celestial Kingdom for him. I can't remember what happened about his previous wife, but still, he had 2 wives and double the children if we LDS are correct – indicating double of everything that he had before the trials.
There are other places in the Bible, if you can get your hands on the 'Gospel Principles' book it has all the references and LDS explanations in it. ALso, if you read the first 2 chapters (I think) they explain the topic of this thread about our relationship with God and how we believe that we can become like Him.
…Thus setting up a heirarchy, Ralph, or is that wrong?
I guess so – just as there is a heirarchy of your son, you, your father, your father's father, his father and so on.
But that is my perspective and its from a mortal finite mind. It may not be either. But we will never be equal to or better/greater than Heavenly Father, as Germit insinuated.
But think this through Ralph. I have never heard any Mormon say that there was a beginning god so to speak, or a supreme god. If there is a heirarchy, there must be one. There is no other option, unless you can become greater than the others, then you can have some back and forth. Actually, that would fit better with the logic so far presented about pre-existing and eternal spririts that become human.
But alas…
Maybe the silence is because most of us are only here to correct the wrong things said about our church because there is no real discussion – you Evs have your mindset and we LDS have ours.
As far as I can see I agree with most of the comments in the above article so why comment unless someone else makes a false statement or asks a sincere/real question.
Fair enough, Ralph. So then our assumption about specific acts required for ultimate salvation is true then, and that it is not about faith, is true, too.
I know somehow you will say that the above is not true, and that is also fair. But if you are granting that marriage is required to become a god, then it cannot be all about faith for getting married, even if done under faith in the future, is a specific act.
Praise God for your story, Gloria. I am new to this blog and am not familiar with your background. Do you have a blog where you talk more about your exit from the church? I am the same age as your husband and wonder if I can offer anything; I was 47 when I received God's grace.
A point I do not want to get lost from this post is that marriage is required for ultimate salvation, ie achieving godhood. Not only does this demonstrate a reliance on works, it brings up several questions about marriage in general. For example, what happens when an eternally married couple divorces, or one of the spouses cheats on another, gauks at another outside of marriage? What if one leaves the church, or just stumbles really badly, enough to individually take one out of the good graces of the church? Does this negate the chances of both becoming a god?
Eternal marriages can happen at a very young age, with a lot of life together to come. While I grant that there is likely some form of forgiveness, an eternal marriage, from what I understand links the spouses for eternity. So, what happens if something really bad goes wrong to but one spouse?
Gundek:
just to set the record straight here is a verse from 2Nephi2: 28 And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit
So if you have not heard it before from a Mormon, you have it from me. I actually hear this at least daily.
Jesus gave a very definitive answer on this topic in the Bible. No "hints" about it so as to avoid any possibility of confusion on the issue. Job did not have 2 wives waiting for him in heaven. Jesus said, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven" (Matthew 22:29-30).
This doctrine of plural marriages in the CK developed out of the perverted mind of one JS so as to justify his own wicked desires. A. W. Tozer (a great American preacher and theologian of the mid-1900's) once said, "A god begotten in the shadows of a fallen heart will quite naturally be no true likeness of the true God. 'Thou thoughtest,' said the Lord to the wicked man in the psalm, 'that I was altogether such as one as thyself.' Surely this must be a serious affront to the Most High God before whom cherubim and seraphim continually do cry, 'Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Sabaoth.' Let us beware lest we in our pride accept the erroneous notion that idolatry consists only in kneeling before visible objects of adoration, and that civilized peoples are therefore free from it. The essence of idolatry is the entertainment of thoughts about God that are unworthy of Him" (A. W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy, pp.3-4).
Jesus gave a very definitive answer on this topic in the Bible. No hints about it so as to avoid any possibility of confusion on the issue. Job did not have 2 wives waiting for him in heaven. Jesus said, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven" (Matthew 22:29-30).
This doctrine of plural marriages in the CK developed out of the perverted mind of one JS so as to justify his own wicked desires. A. W. Tozer (a great American preacher and theologian of the mid-1900's) once said, "A god begotten in the shadows of a fallen heart will quite naturally be no true likeness of the true God. 'Thou thoughtest,' said the Lord to the wicked man in the psalm, 'that I was altogether such as one as thyself.' Surely this must be a serious affront to the Most High God before whom cherubim and seraphim continually do cry, 'Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Sabaoth.' Let us beware lest we in our pride accept the erroneous notion that idolatry consists only in kneeling before visible objects of adoration, and that civilized peoples are therefore free from it. The essence of idolatry is the entertainment of thoughts about God that are unworthy of Him" (A. W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy, pp.3-4).
I wonder what role 1 Cor 7 plays in this? Paul seems to suggest that marriage is to be had only for those who cannot 'control' themselves, and should be entered into so that one might not sin in that regard. That he even discusses it in that way suggests something other than it being a command.
Gloria! I am so happy for you! about your husband… My wife was born and raised LDS and left the church almost a year ago. I never thought it would happen. So just keep chugging along!!! Love for you and your family!
Ralph, you said "there is no real discussion – you Evs have your mindset and we LDS have ours" – I would like to have a real discussion with you. What is the LDS take on I Cor. 7? If Mormonism is a restoration of original Christianity, why did the 1st century apostle teach it was better to remain single?
I think I know more than you give me credit for. Am I an expert? Hardly, probably enough to be dangerous though, lol. But alas… In seriousness, I use hyperbole to demonstrate a trend, and as Aaron says, far too much has to happen.
The trend is that Mormons want to be seen more and more as Christians, just like the rest of us.
Just a quick example, outside of the doctrines that have been dropped or modified, is that you advertise on TV the Bible sent free to those wanting to know more about the gospel of Jesus while saying very little about the BoM or Mormonism.
SteveH,
If your reason for saying that Paul was married was that he was a member of the Sanhedrin you will should read D A Carson or Ben Witherington on the subject before making bold claims.
Ralph,
Does this mean that there continues to be a (for lack of a better term) pool of intelligence for future gods?
Don't you find the Job example slim? It does not speak of marriage for time and all eternity or of any temple rituals. I understand that I am making an argument based on the absence of a ritual but the lack of a set marriage ritual set out in the Old Testament seems to show that marriage is not essential to salvation.
By the way this is the same reason the the reformers did not include marriage in the sacraments, keeping only baptism and the Lord's Supper.
Maybe in a future thread we will have the opportunity to discuss the role of a mediator in your tradition.
Still unable to post anything longer than a sentence. May opt for other sites.
Seriously, DITCH INTERNET EXPLORER and try Google Chrome or Firefox.
Gundek,
Are D.A. Carson or Ben Witherington Jewish? No? I didn't think so.
I appreciate the correction. Why the possibility of going beyond your 'parents' is not there seems illogical to me and an inconsistency in your theology. It also begs the question of how you know you can't or won't. Was this view JS' and BY's as well ?? Just wondering. Thanks for the adjustment.
If your view is correct, every subsequent god will have a slightly diminished glory than the one who preceded him/her. Do you see where this is headed ?? This seems to be improvement in reverse.
Aaron, Thanks for the tip on Google Chrome- will give it a shot.
The same claims are made over and over so many times by LDS critics that it really becomes a disincentive for some LDS to engage in conversation. The whole faith vs. works discussion is repeated so many times. And not once do any critics here accurately OR fairly relate our doctrine on this topic after several extensive discussions. Why is this? I can only conclude that people will believe what they want to believe about us, even it is not true and even if they are shown differently over and over. Does this persistence in stance fulfill some function? There must be some fulfillment in feeling that you have shown fault in the LDS doctrine- that is honestly all I can figure. I truly believe it is a kind of religion in and of itself. Why else say the same falsehood over and over and over and over? It appears so dishonest.
Part of this religion claims that the LDS church changes its doctrine to appeal to the world. Look at homosexual marriage- how many churches have bent over to the gay lobby- countless. Gambling, drinking, morality, feminism, female ordination, unmarried cohabitation, etc. The larger church organizations are caving in large measure to worldy trends. Yes- there are smaller organizations- churches- that haven't, but they are more local in nature. Not many churches as big as the LDS church have not drifted.
WE ARE COMMANDED TO KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS- any version of Christianity that claims otherwise is a fairytale. AND WE DO NOT BELIEVE OUR WORKS SAVE US. But we must obey God to be saved. CHRIST SAVES US 100%. IS THIS REALLY TOO COMPLICATED?
MichaelP,
Regarding LDS doctrine, you clearly do not know what you are talking about. Don't feel too bad, neither do any of the other evangelicals who post here. seriously, why do you assume that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wants "to be seen more and more as" {evangelicals}? We know who we are and who we represent. We know that Jesus Christ leads and directs His Church. We know that we are lead by true prophets of God. The vain philosophies of men (ie. the ever changing theology of evangelicals) do not interest us.
Don't flatter yourself my friend. I know no LDS who desire to become evangelicals or even to be accepted by them. We simply want ya'll to be fair in how you represent us.
A thought I had today- What does an evangelical have that a LDS doesn't? Nothing. What does a LDS have that an evangelical doesn't? Where do I start. Don't mean to say we are better or anything like that.
Here is what I mean: If the EVs are right, the bible is the only and complete word of God. There is no priesthood and no authority outside the Bible. The bible is the only thing we have from God today. So, if you are right, we still have everything that you have because we too have the Bible. Follow?
BUT, if LDS are right, then there are many huge and important things that you are missing out on- Priesthood, eternal marriage, Book of Mormon, modern prophets, etc.
AND if evangelicals are correct that the Bible is the sole authority in the world, then you have no more authority than any LDS to say who is saved and what the Bible means. You are left with your opinion, and that is it.
And although you believe, or say the LDS are not "saved," you are basing that on incorrect information. I say that because no EV has ever stated accurately here to my knowledge what we believe about faith vs. works. I can only conclude you do not understand our doctrine. In other words, if what you say about salvation is true- the LDS qualify for salvation by your own definition.
Aaron- it's working- thanks!
Gundeck,
Check out Dr. Ben Witherington's website He introduces himself with photos from "The Top Ten Redneck Awards".
Is this man is a scholar of Judaic culture and traditions. I think not. D.A. Carson is no more authoritative on the subject of Judaism. Why do you cite these buffoons?
Lautensack,
Thanks for the response. My comments were not qualified in any way. We believe we are saved by grace 100% by Christ, and by that I mean exaltation. Our works do not save us, but are necessary for salvation (exaltation). I am not hiding behind any definition of salvation. Christ will save those who repent and obey Him. This doesn't mean that the obedience saves, it is Christ who does 100% of the saving.
It is interesting how EVs can simplify salvation to the point of saying we must "believe in Christ" to be saved. Then turn around and complicate it according to their definitions. What you are saying is that even though we may believe and have faith in Christ as the Savior of the world and the only means of salvation, we do not have the correct belief in who He is. Am I correct? Do you see that this could be seen as a double standard?
LDS are accused of "adding" things required for salvation (temple marriage, priesthood, etc). Are you not doing the same thing? Show me in scripture where Christ connects your specific "objective" criteria to salvation. Don't get me wrong- I believe there are specific things required for salvation- for which you may find fault. I am simply applying the same standard.
The Bible- sorry if I was not clear. I was saying that the Bible is viewed by EV as the only authority on earth in relation to God- am i right? If there is no priesthood, or persons commissioned from an authority higher than themselves, then I am correct in saying that all anybody has is their interpretation of the Bible. And my interpretation is just as legitimate as any other. I can just as easily say that your understanding of the complete collection of holy writ found in the Bible is incorrect. I can give just as many examples of evangelical doctrines that contradict the Bible according to my interpretation. There is no way around this.
Thanks for the response!
SteveH,
Another very broad stroke with little support. I know you know what you believe, but what you believe, from what I see, tries to look very much like the rest of Christendom. Feel free to disagree, but all I can do is state what I see. What I see is what I said. There may be truth in it, there may not be. But it is interesting to watch the trend, isn't it? Do you want to discuss or are you going to give the strokes you have given?
Steven, you do not have to like what I say. I will never force anyone into that. I am also open to correction, and welcome a cordial debate.
So, given part of the discussion here, and part of the above post, what is your thought on 1 Cor 7? What did he mean when he said that we should only get married to keep us from sinning?
faith of fathers said:
A thought I had today- What does an evangelical have that a LDS doesn't? Nothing. What does a LDS have that an evangelical doesn't? Where do I start. Don't mean to say we are better or anything like that.
What LDS do not have, as Christians believe, is a proper concept of God as eternally trinitarian in nature (didn't Joseph Smith say that a proper view of the nature of God was the first principle of the gospel? King Follett, maybe? If someone could corroborate me, I'd be grateful. God's nature then is not a peripheral doctrine, as a Mormon recently tried to convince me). LDS do not have a relationship with Jesus Christ, other than a distant Mormon Jesus that is a distant exemplar and elder brother who makes up the difference for a Mormon's imperfections. For goodness sake, the way I've heard Mormons talk (and obviously this would not qualify as official Mormon doctrine), "Brother Joseph" is a more personal entity to Mormons than Jesus. Isn't he described in "Praise to the Man" as serving the Mormons in some "mediator" form in heaven? LDS do not have total forgiveness of sins, their high priests and prophets are apparently also simply men with opinions, depending on the circumstance (My living Prophet and high Priest is Jesus Christ: Hebrews 1:1-2, 4:15 and everything He says is official doctrine), and LDS do not have the joy of glorifying God (1 Peter 1:8), as they are too busy magnifying their callings… the list goes on. Forget temples, eternal marriage, imperfect prophets and priests, or even the MoTab choir (by far the greatest blessing of the LDS, in my opinion). I'm experiencing eternal life NOW (John 3:36), and the blessings thereof, spiritually united with ALL believers, not just my family, and most of all, to Jesus Christ.
And you probably disagree that EV's have these blessings. Which is just the point. The reason why we believe we have so much more blessings than the other is because we believe that each other's blessings don't exist.
Nate
So, FoF, to restate your first paragraph, Christ will only save you if you do certain things. Am I being accurate with that? Does it make sense to you why we see that as saying the works save you?
Lets outline what you wrote: Christ saves 100%, but will only save if you do X. Conversely, if you do not do X, Christ will not save. Thus, it makes sense to say X saves because Christ's decision is based on the act of X.
And as I said earlier, all I need is Christ to save, and my salvation is not dependant on X.
So, FoF, to restate your first paragraph, Christ will only save you if you do certain things. Am I being accurate with that? Does it make sense to you why we see that as saying the works save you?
Lets outline what you wrote: Christ saves 100%, but will only save if you do X. Conversely, if you do not do X, Christ will not save. Thus, it makes sense to say X saves because Christ's decision is based on the act of X.
And as I said earlier, all I need is Christ to save, and my salvation is not dependant on X.
WE ARE COMMANDED TO KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS- any version of Christianity that claims otherwise is a fairytale. AND WE DO NOT BELIEVE OUR WORKS SAVE US. But we must obey God to be saved. CHRIST SAVES US 100%. IS THIS REALLY TOO COMPLICATED?
To me, that sounds like saying, "I will pay for your new car, but you must pay me to get your new car." Unintentional equivocation?
You are absolutely right. We are commanded to keep the commandments (Deuteronomy 6:17). However, have you ever kept the commandments? I don't think I have. None of us have (Romans 3:23). So, if "we must obey God to be saved", as you said, and none of us have obeyed God, then none of us will be saved. Unless you're saying that a perfectly just God will overlook sin, and I don't think anyone here is saying that.
Don't Mormons teach that we cannot be saved in our sins? (Alma 11:37) Well, are you out of your sins? I'm not. Why would Jesus need to save us if we were already out of our sins? To use that famous lifeguard/salvation analogy, that would be like a lifeguard throwing an inner tube to someone who was already on the shore. In conclusion: If we must obey God to be saved, and none of us obey God, then none of us can be saved. And if Jesus Christ cannot save us in our sins, then He cannot save any of us. So let me ask you: Is this really too complicated?
I thank God that He is not afraid of getting His hands dirty, that He is with us in the sewers of our lives (Matthew 9:11), and takes us worthless, rabid, filthy rats home with Him and washes us clean (1 Corinthians 6:11) and makes us into entirely new creations (2 Corinthians 5:17). This is a far better plan of salvation than a God who passes out soap to us rats and exhorts us to wash ourselves clean before He'll pick us up and take us home, because He can't wash us if we're too dirty.
My apologies all. I fear I started something that will only allow each side to dig in their claws. I fear I made comments that insulted peoples' pride. That's never a good thing. I do not turn from the statements made about your faith making an effort to be Christians like 'us', I wish I'd approached the idea differentle. I know most Mormons have given all they can to your faith. I appreciate that. I wonder if you appreciate what it is that we believe, and what we see. Believe it or not I always try to view an idea from the way you present it. I really do. And no matter how much I try, I see you forget the one most important thing we can ever have: God. I don't need eternal marriage to be with my wife in heaven for eternity. I don't need baptism by one of authority to be baptized by the holy spirit. I don't need anything but to allow Christ into my heart. And the thing is, neither do you. See allowing Christ into your heart will show you all that you are missing. You don't have to believe me, all you have to rely on is God. He's all we have.
My apologies all. I fear I started something that will only allow each side to dig in their claws. I fear I made comments that insulted peoples' pride. That's never a good thing. I do not turn from the statements made about your faith making an effort to be Christians like 'us', I wish I'd approached the idea differently. I know most Mormons have given all they can to your faith. I appreciate that. I wonder if you appreciate what it is that we believe, and what we see. Believe it or not I always try to view an idea from the way you present it. I really do. And no matter how much I try, I see you forget the one most important thing we can ever have: God. I don't need eternal marriage to be with my wife in heaven for eternity. I don't need baptism by one of authority to be baptized by the holy spirit. I don't need anything but to allow Christ into my heart. And the thing is, neither do you. See allowing Christ into your heart will show you all that you are missing. You don't have to believe me, all you have to rely on is God. He's all we have.
I am still curious the Mormon take on 1 Corinthians 7.
I have seen absolutely nothing on the chapter. Any thoughts from anyone on the Mormon take of 1 Cor 7?
faithoffathers,
The difference here is language I believe. While no Christian here may not have ever stated what the LDS believe about faith and works regarding to "salvation", the definition of salvation they were using was not "general resurrection" rather of what you would call exaltation. So unless you are willing to say that exaltation is by grace through faith and not of works lest any man should boast, and thus God is simply more gracious to those He exalts than He is to those He does not, not on any basis of works that they had done in righteousness but according to His own mercy; saying that the LDS system of salvation, which would include exaltation, is based on works, future ones as they may be, at least in part.
Also you say that LDS qualify for Christian salvation based upon our own definitions. Here is were you show that you do not understand Christian Theology. Faith is both Objective, that which is believed, and subjective, ones act of belief in the Objective. The LDS have a different object (or objects) of faith, thus are not at this point saved.
As for your reasoning about the bible, it's interesting, but built upon false premises, the first being that the bible is the only authority, There is no Christian who actually believes this, to use a human example Christians actually stop at stoplights even though there is nothing about stoplights in the bible. When a Christian says they believe in sola scriptura it means that scripture is the supreme authority, this ought not be confused with solo scriptura which would mean scripture is the only authority. What does this mean for Christians, first that every doctrine, tradition, matter of faith and practice, must be taken in light of tota scriptura, or all of scripture. I submit to you that the LDS belief structure cannot withstand the weight of tota scriptura, not leaving us with our "opinion" rather with what the bible actually teaches against what the LDS assume it teaches based upon their presuppositions that there was a great apostasy, and that Joseph Smith restored the "one true church."
Lautensack
faithoffathers,
The difference here is language I believe. While no Christian here may not have ever stated what the LDS believe about faith and works regarding to "salvation", the definition of salvation they were using was not "general resurrection" rather of what you would call exaltation. So unless you are willing to say that exaltation is by grace through faith and not of works lest any man should boast, and thus God is simply more gracious to those He exalts than He is to those He does not, not on any basis of works that they had done in righteousness but according to His own mercy; saying that the LDS system of salvation, which would include exaltation, is based on works, future ones as they may be, at least in part.
Also you say that LDS qualify for Christian salvation based upon our own definitions. Here is were you show that you do not understand Christian Theology. Faith is both Objective, that which is believed, and subjective, ones act of belief in the Objective. The LDS have a different object (or objects) of faith, thus are not at this point saved.
As for your reasoning about the bible, it's interesting, but built upon false premises, the first being that the bible is the only authority, There is no Christian who actually believes this, to use a human example Christians actually stop at stoplights even though there is nothing about stoplights in the bible. When a Christian says they believe in sola scriptura it means that scripture is the supreme authority, this ought not be confused with solo scriptura which would mean scripture is the only authority. What does this mean for Christians, first that every doctrine, tradition, matter of faith and practice, must be taken in light of tota scriptura, or all of scripture. I submit to you that the LDS belief structure cannot withstand the weight of tota scriptura, not leaving us with our "opinion" rather with what the bible actually teaches against what the LDS assume it teaches based upon their presuppositions that there was a great apostasy, and that Joseph Smith restored the "one true church."
Lautensack
SteveH wrote: We know who we are and who we represent. We know that Jesus Christ leads and directs His Church. We know that we are lead by true prophets of God.
How do you know? Isn't your knowledge based upon the philosophical idea that God cannot supernaturally interact and preserve His church, though He promised it would never fail? If that assumption is wrong then do you actually know anything regarding your church?
Lautensack
So you need to be a Jew to be able to speak authoritatively about Judaism? Do you need to be English to speak authoritatively on Shakespeare? Do you need to be Greek to speak authoritatively on Greek mythology? Linage has little to do with ones ability to know and understand history, and granted both men have Ph.D's in New Testament studies from prominent English universities, I'd say they are reputable sources.
Lautensack
Actually Lautensack, one has to be Klingon to fully appreciate and speak authoritively on Shakespeare, or didn't you know that?
Germit,
This is only an imperfect example as I can think of explaining it no other way. Think of it like a pyramid scheme – Heavenly Father "progresses and increases" eternally as more of His children achieve exaltation. His glory increases more as His childrens' children achieve exaltation and so on and so forth. So our glory will never be more than His. But like I said, this is an imperfect example as I am trying to understand something that is infinite with a finite mind. Then again, my thoughts may also be incorrect.
MichaelP,
Your right, Paul SUGGESTS. If you read all of those sections where he teaches this he says that it is HIS OPINION, not from God. In fact there is another verse that says that in the last days there will be churches/people teaching against marriage and these are apostate churches/people – ie not of God.
So yes, it's Paul's personal opinion, not something he received from God.
MichaelP,
First, it is clear from your comments that your knowledge of LDS doctrine is at best limited if not mostly flawed. This probably comes from reading too many writings from Mormon "critics'" who again do not know the subject matter and only create a gross caricature of Mormonism so as to more easily attack it.
I sincerely believe that you would benefit from a visit to the local LDS church in your neighborhood some Sunday. Many of your misunderstandings would be clarified and you benefit from the educational experience.
The issue of whether or not the Apostle Paul (and Jesus for that matter) was married has been debated through the ages. Many (if not most) biblical scholars of different faiths are of the opinion that Saul of Tarsus (the Apostle Paul before his conversion) was married given his status as being a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin and the cultural norms of the time. For a man to be singe in Jewish society during that period would have been quite an anomaly if not an outright scandal. Indeed, that is still much the case in today's culture (both Jewish and Islamic) in the Middle East.
There are also a number of evidences which suggest that Jesus was also married – but I will leave that topic for another discussion.
Regarding 1 Cor 7: 8-9
I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them to abide even as I.
But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
From this scripture I gather that Paul was a widower at the time.
Why do you presume that Paul said that we only should get married to keep us from burning? That is such a gross and unwarranted interpretation. Paul is not advocating not getting married but rather he advocates abstinence and self-control for those who are single. To suggest that Paul is advocating against marriage would be a profound perversion of his words and would constitute a complete renunciation of some four thousand years of biblical revelation on the subject wherein marriage is a sacred covenant ordained of God.
I am truly boggled in how anyone could possibly entertain the notion that Paul is advocating "that we should only get married to keep us from burning". Then again, it is out such an utter perversion of the scriptures that we have evangelical theology.
TXNathan,
You clearly do not understand LDS Doctrine. If I may repeat myself, I sincerely believe that you would benefit from a visit to the local LDS church in your neighborhood some Sunday. Many of your misunderstandings would be clarified and you benefit from the educational experience.
The LDS do indeed have a very personal relationship with Jesus Christ who is indeed worshipped as their personal Saviour. Don't believe the propaganda of Mormon "critics" who only seek to obfuscate the matter. Find out for yourself.
Good question, one that I have never thought about because I am just thinking about this life right now, not the eternal future I might have. But I have thought of something over the last few days about this.
I think we have a difference in the meaning/use of the word 'God'. You Evs use it to mean The Being who is God. We LDS use it as a title for Heavenly Father and not The Being. As we think of Him as Father we can believe in an eternal future as a family and having a family and becoming parents to other spirit children just as God is the father of our spirits. Thus my comment earlier about your child calling you daddy. Does this make it clearer? My spirit children will call me father just as I call Heavenly Father father and give Him the worship/respect/reverence/etc as a father – but because of all that He has done fo me, which is much more than my mortal father, He also has the title and position of God over me and this world. And He is the only God of this world and me and all who live here.
Hope I made sense. Also these are my thoughts, not an official doctrine so please don't quote it as such.
JessicaJoy,
I have now answered this further down the page but I'll also put a little in here for you.
If you read all the versess correctly when Paul says this, he states rather unequivocally that this is his OPINION and not from God. So, yes, while he is advocating this position, he is not teaching that it is from God.
There is another scripture in the Bible (can't remember off the top of my head) that states that in the last days there will be churches teaching against marriage, and these churches are not from God. So unless Paul is just stating his opinion, then there is a contradiction in the Bible.
No, he is not necessarilly saying marriage is bad, but that if you can refrain from sex, you ought to not get married so you can focus on God.
Read it with that perspective, and see what you think. It might also help if you read some other versions, a tool that helps interpretation.
Do you care to give any examples of how I do not understand LDS views? I have stated that I am not an expert, and you have an area that A) I have misrepresented and can correct me and B) makes logical sense, I am more than willing to revisit these areas.
But you must also understand where I am coming from, and I try to lay this out for you. In other words, show me specifics rather than saying I am wrong on your beliefs.
And I have to ask, do you ever try to consider these things from our viewpoint?
Germit,
We focus more on gaining the Celestial Kingdom and living with God for the rest of etermity, not becoming like God. Yes we teach and have as doctrine this principle, but it is not the 'major focus'. Just getting back to Heavenly Father's presence is the main thing we should worry about now, not what the final reward He will give us is going to be.
OK, Ralph, so, let me step a bit broader now. You say that Paul is suggesting somethhing, and the Mormon claim is that it is the restored church. Was Paul suggesting that people go against what God had commanded in the early church? If so, why would that make any sense?
My point is that there are other ways this section is important in a discussion of LDS beliefs.
And if it is his suggestion, why would he suggest something against a commandment? Paul was supposedly privy to all God's commandments, right? Or is that not right? Is this part of the ongoing revelation? And if it is, how can we trust any command in the Bible? And this leads to the conclusion that Mormons don't think it as important as the newer books.
I've asked before, and I'll ask again about these things and my comments, but does the logic make sense to you? Do you see the connections I make? If I am unclear, what don't you get?
Steve H,
I ask sir, that your stop your personal insults. I have not attacked you nor insulted you. I am disturbed that each time I try to engage with you you resort to insulting the reputations of theologians that I site.
D A Carson is a highly regarded New Testament scholar, Missionary and Churchman. Among his works are An Introduction to the New Testament (Carson, Leon and Moo 1st ed, sadly just Carson and Moo for the 2nd), New Bible Commentary, in the era of Jewish Studies, Justification and Variegated Nomism Vol. 1&2: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism.
Ben Witherington, while not as conservative as I am, is a fine scholar and Minister in the Methodist Church. His commentary series of New Testament books focusing on the "Socio-Rhetorical" show a keen insight into the historical and social setting of 1st century Palestine.
There are 4 reasons sited to question the Paul's membership in the Sanhedrin. 1 Paul never claimed to be a member of the Sanhedrin, even during his defense before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23:1-6). Paul also does not claim to be a member of the Sanhedrin when proving his Jewish credentials (Gal 1:14). Paul also does not use membership in the Sanhedrin to bolster his ministry to Jews in the Diaspora. 2 Paul's teaching on marriage (1 Corinthians 7:25-31) brings into question if Paul was married. 3 Estimates of Paul's age show him to probably be to young to be a member of the Sanhedrin. This is based on a 40 year old requirement to be a member of the Sanhedrin and an estimated 20+ year ministry. 4 It is doubtful that a ruling member of the Sanhedrin would have been actively involved in the persecution of the Church (Acts 9). If Paul was in fact a member of the Sanhedrin it is doubtful that he would have needed letters from the High Priest (Acts 9:2) in order to have authority in Damascus.
I am sure that you can argue against each of these 4 points, but taken as a whole it is interesting.
I understand that this is a doctrinal issue for you and that Paul's marital status can be seen to either support or undermine the LDS position on Celestial Marriage. You should also understand that this is frankly not an issue that I feel compelled to fight about much less engage in the style offensive slurs that you stoop to.
Unfortunately Sir, do to your unprovoked, personal and frankly childish attack on two Godly men, I must ask again that you act like a gentleman and debate the ideas that I present and refrain from the ad hominem attacks.
Jessica,
Of course Saul of Tarsus (Paul) was married – as any Jewish scholar will tell you.
Michael,
I concur, you are crazy with this idea. Plus you obviously do not know much about LDS doctrine or culture.
Steve, you can read more about Carson and Witherington here and here.
I have read much of Witherington's book-response to the Da Vinci Code, and Carson's commentary on the Gospel of John. Great scholars, I highly recommend them. And yes, much of what they do has required a good knowledge of ancient Judaism (consider the debate on the New Perspective on Paul, for example).
A little while back I interacted with a GA, Elder Wood, and he cracked jokes with me. I certainly didn't think that made him a buffoon.
Grace and peace,
Aaron
There are too many institutional checks and balances for that to be realistic apart from an institution-wide miracle.
He might have been married before or after the writing of I Cor 7, but at the time of that writing he was single and advocating the position. "For I would that all men were even as I myself… But if they cannot contain, let them marry" (I Cor. 7:7-9).
WE ARE COMMANDED TO KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS- any version of Christianity that claims otherwise is a fairytale. AND WE DO NOT BELIEVE OUR WORKS SAVE US. But we must obey God to be saved. CHRIST SAVES US 100%. IS THIS REALLY TOO COMPLICATED?
To me, that sounds like saying, "I will pay for your new car, but you must pay me to get your new car." If I'm not mistaken, saying, "we must obey God to be saved" is the same as saying "We are saved because of (or by means of, or by reason of) our works." But you say this is not so. Unintentional equivocation? Or do you not think works and obedience are the same thing?
You are absolutely right; we are commanded to keep the commandments (Deuteronomy 6:17). However, have you ever kept the commandments? I don't think I have. None of us have (Romans 3:23). So, if "we must obey God to be saved", as you said, and none of us have obeyed God, then none of us will be saved. Unless you're saying that a perfectly just God will overlook sin, and I don't think anyone here is saying that.
Don't Mormons teach that we cannot be saved in our sins? (Alma 11:37) Well, are you out of your sins? I'm not. Why would Jesus need to save us if we were already out of our sins? To use that famous lifeguard/salvation analogy, that would be like a lifeguard throwing an inner tube to someone who was already on the shore. In conclusion: If we must obey God to be saved, and none of us obey God, then none of us can be saved. And if Jesus Christ cannot save us in our sins, then He cannot save any of us. So let me ask you: Is this really too complicated?
I thank God that He is not afraid of getting His hands dirty, that He is with us in the sewers of our lives (Matthew 9:11), and takes us worthless, rabid, filthy rats home with Him and washes us clean (1 Corinthians 6:11) and makes us into entirely new creations (2 Corinthians 5:17). This is a far better plan of salvation than a God who passes out soap to us rats and exhorts us to wash ourselves clean before He'll pick us up and take us home, because He can't wash us if we're too dirty.
Nate
Lautensack,
My knowledge that Jesus Christ leads and directs His Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) comes from direct personal experience independent of any outside source. I know that Christ lives. Furthermore, this sure knowledge is available to any one who is humble of heart and willing to have faith in Christ. The key of course is humility and a willingness to listen to Jesus.
FoF,
To answer your question, “I was saying that the Bible is viewed by EV as the only authority on earth in relation to God- am i right?"
Well Yes and No. You see as plainly stated in the WCF Chapter I Part VI “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.”
But that is not the entire story. Christ has seen fit to give us, “The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that fills all in all.” (Chapter XXV Part I).
Chapter XX on Christian Liberty tells us that it is an abuse of Christian Liberty to “oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical…” Chapter XXX tells us that there is church discipline. Chapter XXXI tells of synods or councils “For the better government, and further edification of the Church…”
So you see, Yes the Holy Scripture is the final authority but there is the Church and ecclesiastical leaders and councils to guide and discipline us on our way.
In Genesis 1:27-28 God commanded man and woman to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. We also know that God married Adam and Eve as it refers to them as being man and wife. Finally we are also told in the Bible that pro-creation is only to be within the bonds of marriage. So to keep the first command of multiplying and replenishing the earth one must be married – hence logic suggests that marriage is part of that command from God.
Or did I miss something else in the Biblewhere it says we do not have to have children anymore or we can have them outside of marriage?
MichaelP,
Regarding the other matters which you raised (i.e. not understanding LDS doctrine there really is not enough space here for me to review all of the "mistatements" (I prefer the term misrepresentation) of LDS doctrine that I have seen posted here by evangelicals at Mormon Coffee. The evangelicals' misrepresentation and mischaracterization of the LDS doctrine regarding faith and works is a typical example.
I would encourage anyone who wants to know "what Mormons believe" to visit their local LDS chapel and find out for themselves – a simple enough suggestion.
Regarding your question of whether I have ever considered understanding doctrinal matters from the Protestant viewpoint my response is yes. I am intimately familiar with the Protestant viewpoint.
Make sense, but it seems essentially like a "yes" to my question, "You OK with that, Ralph?" You seem OK being called "God" and "Heavenly Father" because to you those are relative terms. And you likewise seem OK with someday being called the "Alpha and Omega" and "Almighty" and the "King of Ages".
Ralph, repent, and be saved. God is ready and willing to forgive you. Hanging onto the idea of someday becoming an "Eternal Father" and "Almighty God" to whom persons cry out "Holy, holy, holy!" and "You alone are wise!" comes from a heart controlled by Satan and his demons. If you knew the one true God, you would shudder>/em> at the thought of having persons someday worship you as their God.
Makes sense, but it seems essentially like a "yes" to my question, "You OK with that, Ralph?" You seem OK being called "God" and "Heavenly Father" because to you those are relative terms. And you likewise seem OK with someday being called the "Alpha and Omega" and "Almighty" and the "King of Ages".
Ralph, repent, and be saved. God is ready and willing to forgive you. Hanging onto the idea of someday becoming an "Eternal Father" and "Almighty God" to whom persons cry out "Holy, holy, holy!" and "You alone are wise!" comes from a heart controlled by Satan and his demons. If you knew the one true God, you would shudder>/em> at the thought of having persons someday worship you as their God.
Makes sense, but it seems essentially like a "yes" to my question, "You OK with that, Ralph?" You seem OK being called "God" and "Heavenly Father" because to you those are relative terms. And you likewise seem OK with someday being called the "Alpha and Omega" and "Almighty" and the "King of Ages".
Ralph, repent, and be saved. God is ready and willing to forgive you. Hanging onto the idea of someday becoming an "Eternal Father" and "Almighty God" to whom persons cry out "Holy, holy, holy!" and "You alone are wise!" comes from a heart controlled by Satan and his demons. If you knew the one true God, you would shudder at the thought of having persons someday worship you as their God.
TXNathan,
Jesus Christ taught his disciples how to pray. His prayer is known as the Lord's Prayer (with which I assume you are familiar – you know: Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed by the name etc.). Christ directed his disciples to address their prayers to whom? to Our Father who art in Heaven. It is important to note that Jesus did not tell his disciples or apostle to pray to him but rather to his Father. In matters of prayer it is important to follow Christ's example.
The problems arises if one supposes that the Father and the Son are somehow the same entity (as promulgated in the Nicene Creed). Then confusion comes about as to whom one is to address in their prayers. What we need to do is to follow Christ's example – it is really as simple as that.
You stated that the prophet Thomas S. Monson does not have a close relationship with Jesus Christ. This is false. Thomas S. Monson is a true prophet of God and as such receives revelation directly from Jesus Christ. Thomas S. Monson knows the Lord face to face.
Likewise, my relationship with Jesus Christ is personal and intimate. I know Jesus personally. I know his glory. I know his character. I know his sense of humor. I know his voice and I know his face. This knowledge does not come from man but from direct personal experience. Consider the example of Paul the Apostle and you will begin to understand what I am saying.
faithoffathers,
Allow me to try to understand you. You are saying Christ saves/exalts you 100% if you do these things, repent/obey the church? Thus your level of salvation is contingent upon your obedience/repentance? I'm trying not to put words in your mouth but that is what it appears you are saying. Please correct me if I have misunderstood you.
As for the Bible, again even in regard to God it is not the only authority. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork." (Psalm 19:1) The Bible rather it is the supreme authority by which anything else that claims authority must be tested. Yes, you could find many examples that my understanding of scripture is incorrect according to your view, however when your view is critiqued by sola and tota scriptura, your view would fail to be consistent. I dare say that you could not find a single unique doctrine of the LDS Church without the aid of extra biblical writings and the presupposition that the bible is both incomplete and untrustworthy.
Lautensack
Gundek,
I apologize for my comments. However, being a Latter-day Saint I am quite accustomed to evangelicals slinging all sorts of mud at my religion, the leaders of my church, and at me. Nevertheless, I was frankly appalled by what I saw on Dr. Ben Witherington's web site (regarding the Top Ten Redneck Awards) which, in my eyes severely diminishes his credibility. Indeed, I would think that most people would be appalled too.
Regarding the Apostle Paul's marital status, as I have stated elsewhere on this thread, there is considerable debate amongst theologians and biblical scholars concerning whether or not Paul was married. Many scholars are of the opinion that Paul was married. My Jewish friends strongly assert that Paul was married and find it difficult to consider that he wasn't. However, until we find a marriage certificate with his name and that of his spouse I imagine that this controversy will continue to be debated.
This is always what it comes down to with LDS believers. It is basically a form of Gnosticism – secret knowledge revealed only to the initiated. Mormonism cannot be shown to have a standing in archeology or history – so you must have an experience of the hidden knowledge to reveal this transcendent truth. In contrast, Christianity is a very factual religion – you can visit Jerusalem today, there is no debate as to whether the Jewish people of the Bible existed. God established the sacrificial system with the Jewish people and Jesus came to fulfill this system and establish a ruler on the throne of David FOREVER (notice no 1700 year gap in his reign). Jesus was born in a real city still there today – Bethlehem. The creator God of the universe came to earth as a child when Jesus was born. The Holy Spirit came to draw believers to Christ crucified and resurrected. The transcendent experience of God for Christians is very much founded on the work and reality of what God has done in this world – and it can be seen in history. Mormons must accept their beliefs and the Book of Mormon on faith – minus any evidence other than personal experience.
SteveH,
This is interesting because my knowledge that Jesus leads and directs His Church, (which does not include the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), is the only High Priest, because He lives forevermore, comes from both direct personal experience (Romans 8:16) from the spirit of God who leads to all truth (John 16:13).
The difference between us is my testimony, a wonderful thing to be sure, is subject to the scrutiny of the bible, and the whole of the bible. To be frank, my testimony is not the measure for truth, as many men have claimed to see God and lead masses to destruction, rather no matter my feelings I must submit my feelings to the Word of God, the whole of the Bible. If my feelings differ from what the Word of Truth says I have a choice, I can either believe God or trust my own feelings, essentially making man the measure of all things. This knowledge is available to anyone who is willing to allow themselves to be taken captive to the word of God.
Lautensack
JessicaJoy,
I never said that it was a contradiction, I just said that if Paul was not stating his opinion but said that this advice was from God, then it would be a contradiction.
Still no response on the effect of Paul's suggestion on the topic and its effects on the assumption that it was first century custom that all are married ebcause of this commandment.
As I have stated, Paul seems to be saying that it was not rule, like you are assuming.
MichaelP,
Here is what Paul said about the ‘advice’ given –
1 Cor 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
1 Cor 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself
1 Cor 7:12 But to the rest (unmarried and widowed) speak I, not the Lord
From my understanding Paul was saying that those who were single were able to focus on spiritual things more than those who were married and in his opinion that is a good thing.
However the only thing he said that was a ‘command’ from the Lord was in verses 10-11
1 Cor 7:10-11 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
So God’s commandment, and we see this in Jesus’ teachings and the Garden of Eden in Genesis, is to be married.
As far as why Paul is advising something supposedly contradictory – I don’t know, you will just have to ask him when you see him next.
Gundek,
This is what is recorded about Job and his family and possessions before and after his trials. The family numbers are quite specific and verse 10 says that Job was given twice as much as he had before. So it fits with the LDS teachings, but not with other Christian teachings.
Job 1:1-2 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil. And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters.
Job 42:10-14 And the Lord turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends: also the Lord gave Job twice as much as he had before. … So the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses. He had also seven sons and three daughters. And he called the name of the first, Jemima; and the name of the second, Kezia; and the name of the third, Keren-happuch.
But as I said – it’s only a hint, it can be interpreted in other ways.
You stated that the prophet Thomas S. Monson does not have a close relationship with Jesus Christ.
I apologize, I wasn't clear here. My point at that part was that if Mormons said their testimony of Jesus Christ was their relationship with Him, then they would be invalid, since they testify of Thomas S. Monson and Joseph Smith and yet can't say they have relationships with them.
Following the example of Jesus Christ is great. But also consider the final prayer of Stephen (Acts 7:59): "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!" This is a man who saw the heavens open and Jesus seated at the right hand of God (Acts 7:56). In other words, he had a vision comparable to Joseph Smith's (if Smith's vision was a valid one, which I don't believe it is). Would you say that a man so full of the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:55) would say an "improper" prayer immediately afterwards? I don't think so.
I see no confusion in to whom I address my prayers. I address my prayers to the Trinitarian God. Which person I directly address makes no difference to me, or to God, I would think. Sometimes I address Heavenly Father. Other times, I address Jesus. Other times, I address the Holy Spirit.
I hope you realize that Christians do not believe Jesus is Heavenly Father or the Holy Spirit is Jesus or something like that. Christians believe in the Biblical truth that there is one God, that Heavenly Father is God, Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God, but these Persons are not each other. "Neither dividing the divine Essence nor confounding the Persons" I think is the expression. Just to clear that up.
Nate
Ralph,
In the context, we see Paul appealing to his apostolic authority, indicating his advice is from God. At the very end of the chapter, after he says "after my judgment," he adds "and I think also that I have the Spirit of God." Paul believed He was writing this chapter under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I Cor 7, written by the Holy Spirit-inspired apostle causes no contradiction with I Timothy 4:3 or any other scripture in the Bible. It only contradicts with the LDS doctrine of celestial marriage.
Ralph,
In 1 Cor 7:10-11 Paul is speaking to those already married, this is not a commandment to get married. 1 Cor 7:6-7 Paul is giving his opinion that it is better to be unmarried, such would only be valid if God had not commanded either way, requiring marriage or not. If God required men to be unmarried then it would not have been Paul's opinion, and had God commanded them to be, then Paul would be directly opposing a commandment of God. As it is there was no commandment so Paul's opinion was not a sin, but then again marriage is not a sin either, however exalting either celibacy or marriage as an idol is a sin.
Lautensack
Lautensack,
Absolutely- we have to do certain things to be saved. But we do not do the saving. This is Biblical to the core. Christ commands us to keep His commandments and to follow Him, to repent, and "sin no more." And our reward is proportional to our obedience- "for one star differeth from another star in glory, so also is the resurrection of the dead." 1 Corinthians 15:41-42.
"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." Rev 3:21
"If ye love me, keep my commandments."
"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me."
"Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you."
"Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."
WE MUST KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY, BUT THAT DOES NOT SAVE US. CHRIST SAVES THOSE WHO KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS. This may not be convenient, but it is true.
Bible- yes, everything in the natural world testifies of God- but that doesn't answer the questions on doctrine. Understand, appealing to sola and totala scriptura doens't settle the issue. SOMEBODY IS INTERPRETING THE SCRIPTURES from this basis.
LDS doctrines found in the Bible:
1. Godhead- huge topic, but if one interprets the bible literally, you cannot get away from the Father and Son being separate. Many scriptures to support. Consider Genesis 3:22- "the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us." Or John 17. etc. etc.
2. Man may become like God- again Genesis 3:22- man is become like one of us. Psalms 82:6 I have said ye are gods…children of the Most High God." Again quoted by Christ himself in John 10:34. Acts 17:29 offspring of God. Romans 8:17 joint heirs with Christ. 1 John 3:2 when he shall appear, we shall be like him.
3. Premortal life- Job 38:7 all the sons of God shouted for joy (at the creation). Eccl 12:7 the spirit shall return unto God who gave it; Jer 1:5 Before I formed the in the belly I knew thee; Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestine; Ephesians 1:4 chosen us in him before the foundation of the world; Jude 1:6 angels which kept not their first estate (explain this one);
Could go on and on. You will of course reject these examples. But that is your opinion, and any authority you use to reject these interpretations is man-made. Appealing to the Bible solely or in totality will not work to exclude my interpretation. I can justify these doctrines and others on this basis.
If the law made God god, then god is not God because the law is God. By this logic, should we be worshipping the law, not God?
Lautensack,
Not to belabor the point, but that is your subjective opinion and it is also your subjective interpretation of the scriptures. Truly, evangelical theology is quite different from that of Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodox, Coptic traditions. Scholars would also say that there are considerable differences in evangelical theology with that taken by mainline Protestant denominations such as the Church of England (Episcopal Church in the U.S.), Lutheranism etc.
JessicaJoy,
Please re-read the chapter as here is what Paul said to the unmarried –
1 Cor 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
1 Cor 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself
1 Cor 7:12 But to the rest (unmarried and widowed) speak I, not the Lord
Then to the married he said –
1 Cor 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord,
Yes he may have the spirit of God, but he clearly states that all of these comments to the unmarried are his own opinion and not from God as verse 10 compared to verse 12 clearly states.
Mobaby,
Again, you clearly do not understand LDS doctrine. It is not "a form of Gnosticism" as you put it. It is not based on having some type of "secret knowledge". The Book of Mormon is exactly what it claims to be, namely: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Its veracity is open to any who seek it.
TXNathan6152
Are you able to read others' hearts and minds? How can you say that someone does not have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ if you can't? I rely very much on the Saviour and His help and guidance through the day. I recognise Him as my Saviour and Redeemer and that I can only acheive exaltation through His atonement. I also see Him as my elder brother who loved me so much He was willing to come to this earth to suffer for my sins and pains and die for me so I can return to live with my Heavenly Father.
Now if you do not believe that I have a personal relationship with my Saviour then can I say the same about you?
TXNathan,
Stephen was calling out directly to his friend Jesus when he said "Lord Jesus, receive my sprit!". Stephen was not in the act of prayer. It is interesting to note that Stephen beheld God the Father as well as Jesus Christ as two separate individuals with physical bodies. I have never understood how evangelicals could say that this great vision of Stephen comports with a Trinitarian conception of God.
Ralph,
In verse 25 Paul says "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful…I say, that it is good for a man so to be."
According to this passage, there was no commandment related to celestial marriage in the 1st century church, would you agree?
MichaelJ,
In response to your question:
"It seems to me that there are actually two LDS churches. The question is, are there?"
There answer in unequivocally no.
Emphatically, the LDS DO NOT "start with one gospel and end with another".
Really, Martin you truly do not understand LDS doctrine, the LDS Church, its people and culture.
Martin_J,
In response to your question:
"It seems to me that there are actually two LDS churches. The question is, are there?"
There answer in unequivocally no.
Emphatically, the LDS DO NOT "start with one gospel and end with another".
Really, Martin you truly do not understand LDS doctrine, the LDS Church, its people and culture.
MichaelP,
According to your formulation, is not your salvation dependent on X, where X is your faith in Christ?
I think the question is how do we exercise our faith in Christ. In LDS doctrine we exercise our Faith in Christ by repenting of our sins, being baptized and following the commandments of God. The first step of course is exercising faith in Christ.
MichaelP,
Perhaps you are misinterpreting what Paul has to say on the subject. It is unequivocally clear that marriage was and is viewed as a sacred covenant and commandment of God by the Jewish faith. Paul was a Jewish rabbi. It is a perversion of his words to suggest that Paul is advocating against marriage.
This highlights the great problem of evangelical theology in that it consistently misinterprets the intent and meaning of God's Word.
Steve, but that misses the point. You can qualify the works with faith, but that does not negate the importance of the works, right? Faith might be important, to you, but it is meaningless without the specific works, the checklist that Christ will view at judgment. Is Christ going to tell people who had the faith in his saving powers that they don't quailify because they didn't do the specific thing? Of import is faith, then? Does this philosophy of the checklist not also put faith in the works themselves?
I know you believe something different, but this conclusion is perfectly legitimate. I hope you understand the thought process here, that works as a requirement negate the effects of faith as shown above. I hope this also puts the idea that we ought not to put our faith in works so that we might boast. Our faith is to be in Christ, and Christ alone. Does this make sense?
Where did I say Paul was against marriage? I never said so, though I do repeat what Paul explicitly says, that if folks canot avoid sinning through sex, they ought not to get married. How can you read anything different into his clear words? And his clear words suggest that marriage was not a commandment.
BTW, you like to say that we misprepresent your faith. Fair enough, but consider this alternative view: we interpret your faith differently. No, we are not saying what it is you think you believe. While what you think you believe is important, we simply reach different conclusions. Its also necessary to say that Mormons all too often conclude differently on our beliefs. Thus it is important try to understand the others view point, and fairly try to present it. You don't have to like what we say, but give specific examples where we are completely off base. OK?
God's command in the garden, huh? Jesus's teaching, referencing that man and wife are to become on flesh when they are married. There is one thing missing from that– a clear cut command. You'll disagree, and that is fine.
But the biggest thing missing from your response is that the mere suggestion Paul gives, opinion or not, is that marriage was not a requirement. You seem to flippantly disregard this suggestion, which really gets at a major point of Mormonism– that it restored the early church. But here we see a requirement in your church under the restoration theory that was not in existence in the early church. Rather, Paul suggests that it is better not to be married. Again whether or not it was his opinion does not matter to the suggestion that it negates it as a requirement of the early church. Do you have any thoughts on this observation?
Ralph: have you considered the possibility that God wanted to express the FREEDOM that believers have in being married, or NOT, and therefore the fact that Paul says "I have no commandment…." is another way of GOD saying "I, GOD, have no commandment on this as well.." this does not have to contradict being fruitfull and multiplying: that was stated as God's overarching goal for man, not as what EVERY individual has to do physically; if it were such, Paul is very WRONG in not re-stating that "commandment". Is that your view, that not only was this Paul's opinion, but that he is going against "be fruitful and multiply"….or maybe Paul's understanding was weak and flawed ..???
Would it be accurate, FoF, then to state that you are responsible for your actions that Christ bases his decisions for salvation? Whether or not the individual is the one who saves, what role does Christ have in forcing the actions that the individual takes? Seems to me that you have set up a system that requires an individual effort to reach the standard Christ set up, and since there is the idea of agency, it seems the indivuidual alone reaches the check point set up by Christ, and all he does is say yes or no as to the efforts to get there.
I know you will see that as misrepresenting your faith, but is the logic there to reach this conclusion?
MichaelP
I have heard of this interpretation of the Apostle Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 7 wherein "that if you can refrain from sex, you ought to not get married so you can focus on God" and seen it used as a defense of the practice of celibacy for Roman Catholic priests and nuns (which did not become incorporated in the Catholic church until about the 9th century). However, this is clearly a gross misinterpretation of Paul's intent which was to warn the members of the church in Corinth to abstain from the sexual promiscuity that was rampant in Greek culture.
The very notion that Paul (as former Jewish rabbi) would be denouncing marriage or otherwise stating "that if you can refrain from sex, you ought to not get married so you can focus on God" is preposterous. Marriage is a sacred covenant in the Jewish religion and the first great commandment which God gave to Adam and eve in the Garden of Eden:
Genesis 2: 24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
The scriptures must be interpreted in their full social and cultural context otherwise you wind up with really perverted notions such as thinking that Paul was advocating against marriage. It is essential to realize that Jesus and his Apostles were Jews and always viewed themselves as being good Jews – the covenanted people of the Lord. Christ's apostles saw in Jesus the divine fulfillment of Jewish prophecy regarding the coming of the Messiah. Being a disciple of Christ did not diminish their Judaic heritage but to them was a fulfillment of all that being a Jew meant. It was only many decades after the Ascension that the followers of Christ started to see themselves as being distinctly different and apart from their Jewish brethren.
Michael,
No, it doesn't make sense to me nor to the vast majority of Christendom.
It is curious how evangelical theology negates some six millenia of Biblical teaching. The vast majority of Christian denominations (apostolic faiths such as Roman Catholicism, Greek and Russian Orthodox, Coptic, Marionite, Anglican etc. including most mainline Protestant churches – Lutheran, Anabaptist, Calvinists etc.) affirm the absolute necessity of sacraments or ordinances and covenants such as baptism.
Evangelical theology is in the minority on this issue on insisting that ordinances and covenants are not necessary. This begs the question: are evangelicals really Christian if they totally reject Christ's teachings on such vital matters as baptism?
Is not the notion of cheap grace a false gospel?
Michael,
What you wrote is anything but clear:
"I do repeat what Paul explicitly says, that if folks cannot avoid sinning through sex, they ought not to get married. How can you read anything different into his clear words? And his clear words suggest that marriage was not a commandment."
Are you suggesting that Paul was advising the early church members in Corinth that "if they cannot avoid sinning through sex, they ought not to get married". In other words, are you stating that Paul was advocating sexual promiscuity for those who are not married???
Isn't this exactly the opposite of what Paul was writing to the saints in Corinth – to avoid the rampant sexual promiscuity that was so prevalent in Greek culture.
This does not make sense to me.
In regard to you other point concerning misrepresenting LDS doctrine; evangelicals do not so much "interpret {our} faith differently" but rather are very uninformed as to what Latter-day Saints actually believe and practice in their faith.
Ralph: if the corredt , God intended scenario is that all are to be married and have kids, what is Jesus talking about in
Matt 19:12; For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mothers womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are ALSO eunuchs who MADE THEMSELVES eunuchs FOR THE SAKE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it." Comments???
Dear Sharon,
Thanks for your article. I will say this of the "Achieving a Celestial Marriage" book: it is refreshingly straightforward; unvarnished. Based on the sections you cited, it does not seem to try to hide behind jargon and platitudes, but is very explicit about what is being taught.
So I admire the book for its candor, though I cannot say I admire it for its truthfulness. The author clearly has no idea what the Good News about Jesus Christ is. The author's god is a creature, not creator (Romans 1).
Hi Gloria,
Here's a question I've been wanting to ask of someone who's been on the 'inside', and it sort of follows from your observations;
It seems to me that there are actually two LDS churches. The question is, are there?
The first LDS church comprises the rank and file, who broadly see themselves as trying to follow Christ under the direction of the prophets. They are the ones who get surprised when other churches (Evs, for example) react with hostility to the LDS movement. They might have gone through some of the Temple rites, but they're probably thinking that the weirder stuff is not core to their faith. Their reading of the Bible might be rudimentary, but its not all that wacky. They are probably a little embarrassed at some of the teachings that they see as non-core, such as the after-death marriage thing, and they probably hope to muddle through because they've got these wonderful prophets to guide them.
The second church is where they are heading. This is realm of JS's actual teaching. This church comprises the 'survivors' of the rites and missions (those who have stayed with the church after sacrificing so much for it). They are the one's who have 'levelled up' on the various rituals and they are destined for church leadership. Their mission is to promote the temple by drawing in the rank and file. They've got so accustomed to promoting the church's doctrine, that they have long since ceased to question whether it aligns with Christ's at all. Though they put forward an amicable face, they actually loath being scrutinized. To them, Christ is the vehicle through which they achieve the various states that are required to make themselves into gods.
So, it seems to me that LDS start with one gospel, and end with another.
faithoffathers,
This is the heart of the faith works question and what separates Christianity from the knockoffs, do you work because you have already been raised with Christ and seated in the heavenly places because your life is hidden with Christ in God, or do you work so that you can be raised with Christ and seated in the heavenly places so that your life might be hidden with Christ in God?
More plainly do you keep the commandments because in doing so you will gain a greater "celestial" glory vs "terrestrial" glory, is your degree of glory dependent not upon Christ who has forever perfected those who are being sanctified, but upon your own obedience?
As for the LDS doctrines found in the bible. No Trinitarian disagrees that the Father and Son are separate personages, however to arrive at the LDS doctrine of God being an exalted man among many gods I dare say that is utterly contra scripture. (Isaiah 44:8)
Please allow me to correct you, man is like God, however at the same time he is not like God. (Genesis 1:27 cf Isaiah 46:5)
If we read Job 38:7 in context there is no way that the sons of God could be referring to men, unless Job wasn't actually a man. As for God's foreknowledge unless you are willing to say that God does not know the future this in now way infers a pre-mortal life. Jude 6 is referring to angels, in order for such to be referring to men you must first show from scripture than men can become angels or angels men. Eccl 12.7 is indeed interesting however would the spirit not be a good and perfect gift coming down from the father of lights?
You have been so wonderful in showing my point to be clear, your church cannot take all of scripture as it's council. Now you will say this is just my interpretation or opinion, however when you take all of scripture into account an honest man can see that the LDS doctrines are not supported by it.
Lautensack
SteveH,
So my testimony is my subjective opinion, but yours is not? Do you not see the double standard there? As for my "interpretation" of scripture when Isaiah wrote that there was no other God than YHWH was that just his subjective opinion?
While yes there are differences between Roman, Greek, and Protestant traditions, most of which spring from one group not believing all of scripture, there are many things that we do agree on. Also one can be both mainline and evangelical, unless you would say people like RC Sproul, J.I. Packer, and Sinclair Ferguson aren't in mainline denominations.
Lautensack
Good idea. I plan on attending seminary a couple times with my friends as well. But it's very hard to have a relationship with someone you don't talk to. I'm asking sincerely, because if I have misconceptions I want to know the facts: just what sort of relationship do you have with Jesus Christ? I know you claim to testify of Christ, but LDS testify that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet, yet they obviously don't have a close relationship with him. So what exactly constitutes your relationship with Jesus Christ? Or, if that's too personal, what would be your estimate of the average LDS relationship with Jesus Christ?
Nate
P.S. I was not referring to "propaganda", for the record. I was referring to a speech given by McConkie concerning the LDS relationship with Jesus Christ. I was also told by a Mormon that Mormons don't worship Jesus, they worship Heavenly Father through Jesus (and yes, I know it isn't official doctrine when an average Mormon speaks of such things, but it wasn't propaganda). Don't believe the ideas I've heard some Mormons say; EV's are not out to obfuscate the matter. EV's are not testimony killing, lying demons.
I don't see any contradiction here. The 1st century apostle obviously did not believe in the doctrine of celestial marriage which is why he advocated for being single. Later, in I Timothy 4:3 he said that some would depart from the faith and would teach heretical doctrines such as "forbidding to marry." He never forbade marriage in I Cor. 7 so I don't see what the contradiction is. He certainly did not teach the LDS doctrine on celestial marriage that Sharon cited in this post, which is another reason LDS doctrines do not resemble 1st century Christian teaching.
SteveH,
I agree that there is debate about Paul's marital status. John Calvin comments on it in a number of places in his commentaries. Read his comments on Philippians 4:3. Once again the is focusing on the Greek word "Syzygos" and if it is a proper name.
I am interested in why your Jewish friends are convinced that Paul was married. I would also be interested in the Jewish view on celestial marriage.
Ralph,
Thank you again for the answer. I am still not clear on how the spirit and intelligence thing is supposed to work. I understand that god makes the spirit and puts the pre-existing non-made intelligence in them. My question is where does the intelligence come from for the spirits born to the exalted in the future? Has this intelligence existed for all time too?
Thank you also for the suggesting a copy of gospel principals.
Steve,
In terms of the history of the overall movement, the Utah Branch of the LDS tradition certainly has started with one gospel and ended with another. I don't see any current teaching that polygamy is mandatory for exaltation, or that blacks cannot become priests, or communal possession of goods, or the Adam-God theory, or frontier expansionism, or the magic world-view, or the literalness of the Book of Abraham, to name a few.
I will accept that one idea that has continued from the start is the LDS faith in their prophets (which is utterly misplaced, IMO).
My concern is that the average guy in the pew has no clear idea about where the LDS movement is headed. There's only this vague idea that Jesus started the whole enterprise going, which is demonstrably untrue.
I might know more than you think. My father is a Freemason, and I know something of the Temple Rites that LDS have copied from Freemasonry.
Steve can I ask you a question? What temple rites have you been through, and why did you do them? What rites of passage, or initations have you completed?
Cluff, beg your pardon?
"That is the verse that Matthew was commanded to leave out of his gospel, because the world was not ready for deeper doctrine. You know, milk before meat."
What a comment! I am not sure to take it seriously or not. And I am not trying to be mean. What you are saying here is that the Bible is unequivocably not sufficient because God left stuff out that we might not understand. I hope you know that we disagree 100%.
While I accept that as the Mormon view on how it affects godhood, and for that I thank you for your explanation. I think you might expect me to have some problems with the thinking. The trouble with it is not too far from the first in that marriage was not written for baptism. That substitution is changing what was written. It also does not negate Paul's writing in 1 Cor 7. I think it is more difficult to arrive at that conclusion without your last comment, that Matt was commanded to leave stuff out, a claim without any historical, or theological, basis.
Post script correction;
Before I get too distracted by the history of the LDS movement, my present concern is that "newbies' might be joining the LDS church with one set of expectations, but the "veterans" know that its all very different.
So, possibly there are two churches; the 'public' church that says "we believe in Jesus" and the 'secret' church that operates behind closed doors.
My question to SteveH is about where he stands in the progression from one to the other.
SteveH,
While I do not know the teachings of "Roman Catholicism, Greek and Russian Orthodox, Coptic, Marionite, Anglican etc. including most mainline Protestant churches – Lutheran, Anabaptist…" I am familiar with the Reformed teaching on Baptism. Calvin teaches us in the Institutes that…
“We must utterly reject the fiction of those who consign all the unbaptized to eternal death… Baptism is not so necessary that one from whom the capacity to obtain it has been taken away should straightway be counted as lost” (4.16.26).
I cannot speak for all who claim to be Reformed of course but for anyone who subscribes to the Westminster Confession of Faith the Divines tell us that…
"Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated." (WCF XXVIII, V)
And yes cheap grace is a false gospel.
I would say they are still true today. I am convinced that eternal progression is the way of truth, but people do tend to look at it wrong. When you consider that the alternative is eternal stagnation, is that not the core definition of damnation? Progress ended, no more growth is a prison condition– a state of damnation NOT heaven. When we grow in glory ourselves we have more glory to give to Him who created us. Why can none of you see that perspective?
Gundek,
I have never understood why some evangelical sects reject the words of Jesus Christ when he states very plainly:
John 3:5
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
There are numerous other examples in the New Testament where Christ states very plainly that the ordinance of baptism is absolutely necessary. Yet, notwithstanding the clear and plain words of Jesus, evangelicals (unlike the rest of Christendom) totally reject the necessity of this ordinance.
Given that evangelical theology so easily rejects such a basic tenet of Christianity as well as many other basic tenets (ordinances and covenants, the priesthood, the importance of marriage etc.) can evangelicals be properly called Christians?
MichaelP,
It is recorded in the New Testament in numerous places that Christ instructed his disciples NOT to tell the world about some specific aspects of His teachings or sacred events that took place.
One example would be what transpired on the Mount of Transfiguration wherein Jesus and three of his disciples (Peter, James, and John) ascended this high mountain. On the mountain top Jesus, and his three disciples met with Moses and Elijah and God the Father who declared:
Matthew 17: 5
This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
In Matthew 17:9 Jesus instructs his disciples to tell no one about the vision or what transpired there.
What occurred on the Mount of transfiguration was that the Keys of the Kingdom
of God (or the power and authority specifically held by Moses and Elijah) were transfered to Christ's disciples Peter, James and John.
The sacred events which occurred on the Mount of Transfiguration are a great mystery to biblical scholars and have been hotly debated through the ages.
The Lord has chosen to reveal an understanding of these sacred events in this dispensation. This is but one example of the great value of modern revelation and prophets.
MichaelP,
It is recorded in the New Testament in numerous places that Christ instructed his disciples NOT to tell the world about some specific aspects of His teachings or sacred events that took place.
One example would be what transpired on the Mount of Transfiguration wherein Jesus and three of his disciples (Peter, James, and John) ascended this high mountain. On the mountain top Jesus and his three disciples met with Moses and Elijah and God the Father who declared:
Matthew 17: 5
This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
In Matthew 17:9 Jesus instructs his disciples to tell no one about the vision or what transpired there.
What occurred on the Mount of transfiguration was that the Keys of the Kingdom
of God (or the power and authority specifically held by Moses and Elijah) were transfered to Christ's disciples Peter, James and John.
The sacred events which occurred on the Mount of Transfiguration are a great mystery to biblical scholars and have been hotly debated through the ages.
The Lord has chosen to reveal an understanding of these sacred events in this dispensation. This is but one example of the great value of modern revelation and prophets.
To both Aaron and Gloria,
You make it sound as though we wake up every morning, open the window and cry out "HA HA! I will be a god someday! Wa-ha-ha-ha-haaaa!" which is soo FAR from the the truth. Gloria…I'm not exactly comfortable with the idea that I would become like unto God…the thought is humbling…and i do feel a sense of joy in my humility, to know that I am a Child of God and that my potential is unlimited. i seek not to be praised Aaron, for i have not and will not have done anything in this lifetime to merit such. You are right though, that if such feelings of arrogance and pride did persist in one's heart, then we need to repent. When is he, who seeks a position of authority within your church, sinful in the desire? When is he not? What should he focus on and what should he not focus on?
Aaron, I have never in my life, until you suggested it, considered the topic of praise and adoration…and it seems that Ralph hasn't either…nor have i heard it mentioned in all my years. Is it appropriate to? I think not. And i echo Ralph, i am too concerned with my current relationship with Christ to bother with unfathomable circumstances ions from now. The attitude you suggest we have would be akin to me accusing you of planning the decor of your mansion in heaven.
One more clarification….I am a son to a mortal father…and although i become a father myself, i am still my father's son, and he is still greater than i and that will never change. although i have grandchildren and am a grandfather, yet will he be a Great-grandfather and he will never be deminished. i will never be equal to God the Father.
ISSAC;s point, and others have made it, seems to be inconsistent to me, here's how:
on the one hand, a person is to recieve greater glory and exaltation based on obedience to eternal principles and commandments, just as GOD Himself has (so the story goes). So, the greater the obedience= the higher the position. Not saying I agree with that, but I think I 'get it'.
THEN, Isaac says essentially, my father, grand-father, etc. are greater than me BECAUSE THEY PRECECED ME. The LDS seem to favor earthly analogies in this : what if my earthly father is the Unibomber, orthe BTK killer ?? Is he still greater than I , even if I extend to him the honor due to a father ?
As for feeling uncomfortable, well you should, becoming a god is idolatry. You have something of a conscience. GERmIT
To the 1 Cor 7 thread,
Paul is a missionary. Paul is single. It is better to be a single missionary for 7:33 "he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, (as in)how he may please his wife." In 7:29 Paul eludes to a time when those married will be asif they were not…they will be missionaries, and thier greater responsiblity to the Lord. If you must marry, marry, but the self control over your passions whilst on your mission will surely impower you (as would keeping the other commandments of God.)
Isaac, welcome to the blog. Please register with IntenseDebate.com so we don't have to moderate your every comment.
> "i will never be equal to God the Father."
Please be more specific. Are you adopting a Brighamite or Prattian view of Mormon eternal progression? Because either view speaks of significant ways of becoming equal with God the Father, although never relationally and familially supreceding him.
Also, what I write doesn't really change whether or not you wake up consciously thinking about deification. For one thing, institutional and historic teachings have made it clear that it is the "first principle" and "greatest goal" to know that God is man like us, and progressed unto godhood like we can someday. See what your own Manti Pageant has been saying for years upon years.
If you are only rarely conscious of your end goal, I would see that as a kind the result of a kind of coping mechanism of diassociation, avoiding the awkward and uncomfortable implications of what your own worldview. And I would see it as an attempt to stay Mormon by avoiding important parts of Mormonism. Either way, it's a heart-problem and an integrity-problem. Either your religion teaches the end-goal of deification or it doesn't. If it does, then you have a responsibility to conscious integrate that into a responsible working worldview.
As for me and my house, I will trust God's testimony, "Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me." (Isaiah 43:10)
Isaac, welcome to the blog. Please register with IntenseDebate.com so we don't have to moderate your every comment.
> "i will never be equal to God the Father."
Please be more specific. Are you adopting a Brighamite or Prattian view of Mormon eternal progression? Because either view speaks of significant ways of becoming equal with God the Father, although never relationally and familially supreceding him.
Also, what I write doesn't really change whether or not you wake up consciously thinking about deification. For one thing, institutional and historic teachings have made it clear that it is the "first principle" and "greatest goal" to know that God is man like us, and progressed unto godhood like we can someday. See what your own Manti Pageant has been saying for years upon years.
If you are only rarely conscious of your end goal, I would see that as a kind the result of a kind of coping mechanism of diassociation, avoiding the awkward and uncomfortable implications of what your own worldview. And I would see it as an attempt to stay Mormon by avoiding important parts of Mormonism. Either way, it's a heart-problem and an integrity-problem. Either your religion teaches the end-goal of deification or it doesn't. If it does, then you have a responsibility to conscious integrate that into a responsible working worldview.
As for me and my house, I will trust God's testimony, "Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me." (Isaiah 43:10)
Isaac, welcome to the blog. Please register with IntenseDebate.com so we don't have to moderate your every comment.
> "i will never be equal to God the Father."
Please be more specific. Are you adopting a Brighamite or Prattian view of Mormon eternal progression? Because either view speaks of significant ways of becoming equal with God the Father as he is now, although never relationally and familially supreceding him.
Also, what I write doesn't really change whether or not you wake up consciously thinking about deification. For one thing, institutional and historic teachings have made it clear that it is the "first principle" and "greatest goal" to know that God is man like us, and progressed unto godhood like we can someday. See what your own Manti Pageant has been saying for years upon years.
If you are only rarely conscious of your end goal, I would see that as a kind the result of a kind of coping mechanism of diassociation, avoiding the awkward and uncomfortable implications of what your own worldview. And I would see it as an attempt to stay Mormon by avoiding important parts of Mormonism. Either way, it's a heart-problem and an integrity-problem. Either your religion teaches the end-goal of deification or it doesn't. If it does, then you have a responsibility to conscious integrate that into a responsible working worldview.
As for me and my house, I will trust God's testimony, "Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me." (Isaiah 43:10)
Isaac, welcome to the blog. Please register with IntenseDebate.com so we don't have to moderate your every comment.
"i will never be equal to God the Father."
Please be more specific. Are you adopting a Brighamite or Prattian view of Mormon eternal progression? Because either view speaks of significant ways of becoming equal with God the Father as he is now, although never relationally and familially supreceding him.
Also, what I write doesn't really change whether or not you wake up consciously thinking about deification. For one thing, institutional and historic teachings have made it clear that it is the "first principle" and "greatest goal" to know that God is man like us, and progressed unto godhood like we can someday. See what your own Manti Pageant has been saying for years upon years.
If you are only rarely conscious of your end goal, I would see that as a kind the result of a kind of coping mechanism of diassociation, avoiding the awkward and uncomfortable implications of what your own worldview. And I would see it as an attempt to stay Mormon by avoiding important parts of Mormonism. Either way, it's a heart-problem and an integrity-problem. Either your religion teaches the end-goal of deification or it doesn't. If it does, then you have a responsibility to conscious integrate that into a responsible working worldview.
As for me and my house, I will trust God's testimony, "Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me." (Isaiah 43:10)
I'm not exactly comfortable with the idea that I would become like unto God…the thought is humbling…
Humbling? It is pure pride. If you think that it's even possible that you will someday be appropriately be worshipped by other persons (spirit children), then you need to repent of pride and worship the one true God as the God of gods, who alone is to be worshiped in all worlds and in all reality.
I'm not exactly comfortable with the idea that I would become like unto God…the thought is humbling…
Humbling? It is pure pride. If you think that it's even possible that you will someday be appropriately be worshipped by other persons (spirit children), then you need to repent of pride and worship the one true God as the God of gods, who alone is to be worshiped in all worlds and in all reality.
i seek not to be praised Aaron
Well God does. And so the question is, if you really think you can become worsipped by others as a God someday, will you be seeking that praise like our God seeks that praise? If so, again, you need to repent.
Grace and peace in the God of all gods for all worlds and all universes,
Aaron
He "down played it" because those not of our faith teach it more than we do. When does a man, who is seeking a position of authority within your church, sinful? LDS's are portrayed as basking in the state of godhood that they will someday aquire…when its mentioned minimually. To dwell on it, as those in these post do and or accuse us of doing, is sinful in nature. We do not focus on such things just as you do not focus on what decor you might have in your mansion in heaven. Focusing on our relationship with Christ is above focusing on post-exsitance circumstances.
Isaac, nowhere does Paul narrow or limit of relativize his comments to missionaries.
Isaac, nowhere does Paul narrow or limit or relativize his comments to missionaries.
Ye must be baptized to enter the kingdom of God. It requires a specific act, does it not? Yet ye must have a broken heart and a contrite spirit. Ye must have Faith. Ye must have Charity. If ye have faith alone, and act not, then where lies your faith? If i have faith in Christ, yet do not heed his call, and do not serve my fellow man, then where lies my Faith? In Barren land that cannot produce the fruits to be harvested. If i have faith to move my chair from one side of the room to the other, yet do not move it, then is my faith dormate and inactive. To require an act is not denying the neccesity of faith.
Evangelicals don't teach it. We simply point out that traditional Mormonism taught it, institutional Mormonism in a measure continues to teach it, and at the laymen folk level of oral traditional it still is a doctrine that thrives.
This isn't an issue of mere focus. It's an issue of a true/false proposition. Either you believe you can become a God worshiped by other persons (spirit children) someday or not. If you do, then we have all the more reason to hold up the teaching to the world and show it for how ugly it is, and then call all who believe in it to repent, and instead worship the one true God as the God over all gods for all worlds and universes.
Isaac, the issue of "focus" and "emphasis" is a red herring. The issue is whether you are going to repent.
Amongst the 1000's of churches out there, there is not a consensus on what tota scriptura is, for one must rely on the corruptable flesh of the heart and mind to make thier interpretations. If i wanted to become a pastor, i'd go to one of many Religious colleges and or Seminaries to receive a degree in theology….I am trained in the intsitutions of man. Though the Bible speaks truth, I am liable to misinturprete. As the ruling priests of Christ's age misread the scriptures so it is possible today.
Cheap grace. Do you really think the grace offered by Christ is cheap?
I know you say you have put effort into understanding our view, but I don't think you get it. You can view it differently, but a pet peeve of mine is when Mormons get so bent out of shape when we "misconstrue" your faith and so quickly and readilly "misconstrue" ours. And again, you paint a very large brush without specifics. Do you care to explain why ours is a cheap gospel? Please do so while accurately portraying our view. It can be done while disagreeing, too.
Yes, they can be read wrong. And many are. Joel Osteen and Benny Hinn are great examples. But that does not mean they all get it wrong, and that is why we have the Bible as the standard. This way we can test what people say about God's word by looking at an objective and stable source. Sure, there are different takes, but there are many ideas that are unreasonable. Kind of like law, there are different ways to apply a legal rule, but that rule still exists.
Wow,
Isaac this is perhaps one of my favorite arguments, "there are so many churches that there is no way to know who is actually speaking the word of God." That's because it doesn't actually take into account what those "1000's" of churches actually believe that is the same and what the differences are (Romans 14). However allow us to turn this argument around, How do you know your church is the one true Mormon Church that Joseph Smith started amongst the 100+ Churches out there claiming to be the true succession of his teachings?
Lautensack
2 Ne 26:16 Behold, it came to pass on the morrow that the multitude gathered themselves together, and they both saw and heard these children; yea, even babes did open their mouths and utter marvelous things; and the things which they did utter were forbidden that there should not any man write them.
2 Ne 28:16 But it came to pass that they did again minister upon the face of the earth; nevertheless they did not minister of the things which they had heard and seen, because of the commandment which was given them in heaven.
Historical, even scriptural, but you have to accept the BoM first.
What kind of things would God forbid to be written? Who knows, but if it happened on the American continent, it probably happened in Jerusalem. To Matthew perhaps?
2 Ne 26:16 Behold, it came to pass on the morrow that the multitude gathered themselves together, and they both saw and heard these children; yea, even babes did open their mouths and utter marvelous things; and the things which they did utter were forbidden that there should not any man write them.
2 Ne 28:16 But it came to pass that they did again minister upon the face of the earth; nevertheless they did not minister of the things which they had heard and seen, because of the commandment which was given them in heaven.
Historical, even scriptural, but you have to accept the BoM first.
What kind of things would God forbid to be written? Who knows, but if it happened on the American continent, it probably happened in Jerusalem. To Matthew perhaps?
MichaelP asked:
I am still curious about marriage's role in acheiving godhood?
The way to understand this concept properly, from the Mormon perspective is to ask the same question about a similar commandment that may be more acceptable. For example:
I am still curious about baptism's role in acheiving salvation
Take a paragraph or two to answer. Be sure to include bible references. When you are done, run find and replace to substitute marriage for baptism and salvation with exaltation, (or godhood if you prefer) then you will understand the concept properly.
Take Matt 3:5 for example:
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Try this change:
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, it is not enough to enter into the kindgom of God alone, except a man be sealed in eternal marriage and stay faithful to his wife he cannot have eternal increase in the kingdom of God.
That is the verse that Matthew was commanded to leave out of his gospel, because the world was not ready for deeper doctrine. You know, milk before meat.
Isaac, welcome to the blog. Please register with IntenseDebate.com so we don't have to moderate your every comment.
"i will never be equal to God the Father."
Please be more specific. Are you adopting a Brighamite or Prattian view of Mormon eternal progression? Because either view speaks of significant ways of becoming equal with God the Father as he is now, although never relationally and familially supreceding him.
Also, what I write doesn't really change whether or not you wake up consciously thinking about deification. For one thing, institutional and historic teachings have made it clear that it is the "first principle" and "greatest goal" to know that God is man like us, and progressed unto godhood like we can someday. See what your own Manti Pageant has been saying for years upon years.
If you are only rarely conscious of your end goal, I would see that as a kind the result of a kind of coping mechanism of diassociation, avoiding the awkward and uncomfortable implications of your own worldview. And I would see it as an attempt to stay Mormon by avoiding important parts of Mormonism. Either way, it's a heart-problem and an integrity-problem. Either your religion teaches the end-goal of deification or it doesn't. If it does, then you have a responsibility to conscious integrate that into a responsible working worldview.
As for me and my house, I will trust God's testimony, "Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me." (Isaiah 43:10)
Isaac, welcome to the blog. Please register with IntenseDebate.com so we don't have to moderate your every comment.
"i will never be equal to God the Father."
Please be more specific. Are you adopting a Brighamite or Prattian view of Mormon eternal progression? Because either view speaks of significant ways of becoming equal with God the Father as he is now, although never relationally and familially supreceding him.
Also, what I write doesn't really change whether or not you wake up consciously thinking about deification. For one thing, institutional and historic teachings have made it clear that it is the "first principle" and "greatest goal" to know that God is man like us, and progressed unto godhood like we can someday. See what your own Manti Pageant has been saying for years upon years.
If you are only rarely conscious of your end goal, I would see that as a kind the result of a kind of coping mechanism of diassociation, avoiding the awkward and uncomfortable implications of your own worldview. And I would see it as an attempt to stay Mormon by avoiding important parts of Mormonism. Either way, it's a heart-problem and an integrity-problem. Either your religion teaches the end-goal of deification or it doesn't. If it does, then you have a responsibility to consciously integrate that into a responsible working worldview.
As for me and my house, I will trust God's testimony, "Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me." (Isaiah 43:10)
John 17:3–And this is life eternal that they know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent
Isaiah 43:11
I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.