In March I posted “Least Influential Mormons” here on Mormon Coffee. I wrote,
“If we were making a list, I think we might include the names of at least the first five LDS prophets as those whose doctrines are often considered irrelevant in Mormonism today. A number of their significant teachings have fallen by the wayside.”
I provided examples of some of these teachings, including Lorenzo Snow’s couplet on the nature of God (“As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.”) A Latter-day Saint reader responded:
“Haha. I can only laugh at this posting. The thought came to me: Who better to tell ME (a proactive and faithful member of the LDS Church) what teachings are ignored or taught in the Church, than Sharon? It’s hilarious.
“The Lorenzo Snow couplet is one of the LEAST ignored teachings in the Church. I hear it, at least, twice a month…. Which is a lot, considering.
“…So, you made me laugh, Sharon. You say that Lorenzo Snow’s couplet is an ignored teaching, when I hear it ALL THE TIME, in the Church. It really hurts your credibility.” (Excerpted from lengthier quote)
Sometime later I came across Krista Tippett’s January 2008 interview of LDS scholar Robert Millet (Speaking of Faith on American Public Media). In this interview, Ms. Tippett asked Dr. Millet about the LDS godhead. She expressed her understanding that the Mormon idea of God is that He is a product of something like spiritual evolution: “God who was once a man, and moved into this very different kind of being.”
Dr. Millet acknowledged the fact that Joseph Smith and other LDS prophets taught that God was once a man. He continued,
“but you know, it’s talked about so little, so infrequently; I hear much, much more of that teaching from those who are outside the LDS faith than I do from people within.”
How could the church experiences of our Mormon reader and Robert Millet be so different? One hears the doctrine “all the time” in the Church, and the other hears it “so little, so infrequently.”
In March I suggested that this could be a case of public Mormonism vs. private (members only) Mormonism. This idea seems to be borne out in a Church News report of the 61st annual Joseph Smith Memorial Lecture. Speaking to a Utah audience, Joe J. Christensen, then of the Presidency of the Seventy, told this story during the Memorial Lecture, related here by Church News:
“He [Christensen] told of speaking to a university class in the Southwest on the Church during a Religion in Life Conference. After the class, the professor approached him [Christensen] and asked him if he believed the statement, ‘As man is God once was, and as God is man may become.’
“‘I had purposely not used that statement during my remarks to the class because I felt that I could raise more dust with that one than I would be able to settle in one class period,’ he recalled. ‘After circumlocuting around and around the question, I finally said, ‘”Yes, we believe that.”‘” (Church News, 2/4/1995, 4; emphasis retained from the original)
Mr. Christiansen admitted the truth of the doctrine in the end. During the Tippett interview Robert Millet also admitted believing that God was once a man, for he thinks it’s “part of the faith.” Dr. Millet added,
“but it’s rather theologically tangential in the sense that we believe He’s a man; what went on before He was God we just have no idea.”
Dr. Millet referenced Joseph Smith’s King Follett Discourse earlier in the interview when he acknowledged prophets had taught God was once a man. It seems that if Dr. Millet is willing to believe Joseph’s teaching on that point, then Joseph’s statement on the pre-godhood of God should inform Dr. Millet on that as well. Joseph Smith said,
“…you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 346-347)
So, according to the Prophet, what went on before God became God was this:
- He was learning how to be a God;
- He was learning how to be a king and a priest to His God;
- He was going from one small degree to another;
- He was going from a small capacity to a great one; etc.
This seems pretty clear to me; and it’s pretty important as well. Those who believe the Bible can in no way consider the doctrine of God “theologically tangential.” Knowing God as He is–and worshiping Him alone–is theologically essential.
“‘…let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows Me,…'” *
* Jeremiah 9:24. In addition, please consider Jeremiah 10:10; Exodus 34:14; John 17:3
The question I would like to ask is “Why are, or why do Mormons seem so wishy washy on this most fundamental of all teachings of their founding prophet Joseph Smith?” Are they embarrassed by it? Joseph Smith and those who followed him seem pretty definite in what they believed about the nature of god and mans’ progressing to becoming gods. I think there is this idea in Mormonism that this cannot be discussed outside of the clique because nonsaints just don’t have enough spiritual light to understand it. I would say we have enough spiritual light to reject it for what it is abject heresy and outright blasphemy. My point as always is if Mormons want to believe this that there business, but then recognize you can’t be counted in the family of Christian believers.
I believe LDS know full well this doctrine. After all, its all ABOUT getting to that celestial kingdom and becoming a God. I think they just down want to own up to it. Perhaps because it is embarassing that the Bible teaches only one God, and even the BoM teaches of one God and it is a doctrine that creates a severe separation between traditional Christianity and Mormonism, which LDS try so desperately to bridge the gap. (I must say though, their PR system is rather good at blurring the line, or at least trying to). The scary thing is that when/if Mormonism gets so big that the majority of the world is Mormon, it will phase out traditional Christianity and become the new christianity.
Essentialy. Mormonism is the ID thief of Christianity. Eventually the PR system won’t have to work so hard to blur the line because there will be no line, and the flood gates of LDS doctrine can open all the way and run freely into the world.
Whenever I read the book of Revelation and about apostasy (that LDS think has already happened) but what I believe most traditional Christians think has yet to happen, it just makes me wonder if the Mormonism is the apostasy that Revelation speaks of.
I think this is another example of how Mormon doctrine is so silly that the church has to make all kinds of mind-bending gymnastics to believe it themselves. It’s like nailing down jell-o.
I just met some new friends this week, and was interested to find out they are “ex” Mormons. I wanted to talk to them about this some more, since I don’t think they’ve gone anywhere beyond just rejecting Smith. One of them is the granddaughter of a major Mormon prophet or something. I’m hoping that we can have some interesting conversations in the future. 😉
and to go further off topic, I’ve been reading a lot about the FLDS lately since I live close to the El Dorado mess, (reading Carolyn Jessop’s Escape now) – and I wanted to say that the link in the sidebar to Mary Mackert’s interview on leaving the FLDS – it was so amazing I cried. What a beautiful woman, and how great is our God!!
Some Mormons think that claiming ignorance over God’s past gets them off the hook. But this opens up the possibility that God was once a horrific sinner. He could have been a liar, a thief, and adulterer, a coveter, a idolater, a man full of hateful rage, a practicing homosexual, a masturbator, a conman, an outrageously deceptive televangelist, a false teacher, a false prophet—all before he repented and proved his worthiness unto godhood. A few Mormons I know believe that Satan still has an opportunity to repent and become a god, while is odd, because it implies even our particular “Eternal Father” could have been a satan before he repented unto godhood.
Some Mormons think that claiming God’s past isn’t “emphasized” gets them off the hook. This is an odd argument, as it’s like justifying cyanide in kool-aid so long as the cyanide only consists of a proportionally minimal part of the whole drink, and so long as the label on the outside of the bottle doesn’t advertise its contents. I doubt many Mormons would be satisfied with a professing Christian saying, “I believe Jesus Christ was an outrageous liar, but I emphasize and focus on his good moral teachings and divinity.” It just doesn’t make sense.
This issue of whether God sinned is so important that all LDS General Authorities, apostles, and the prophet should, at this very moment, make an oath not to eat or sleep until it is resolved. They should immediately hold an emergency session over it. They sin by eating another meal or having another night’s rest while allowing membership to comfortably believe that God the Father could have been a sinner.
Sincerely,
Aaron
The recently used, correlated, and church-published manual Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young contains the following:
Never thought I’d be quoted in a blog post at an anti-Mormon site. The authorities of the Church will probably knock down my door any moment now to authoritatively excommunicate me.
When I said, “I hear it ALL THE TIME, in the Church,” I was referring to the couplet itself. We don’t sit around in our Sunday Schools and Elder’s Quorums speculating on on the pre-godhood of God. We use the quote to profoundly highlight our most unique doctrine: We can become like God, or if you don’t like the word ‘like,’ we can become A god, a Heavenly Father. We don’t use the couplet to highlight the doctrine that God was once a man.
Brother Millet would be lying if he didn’t admit that we hear of our destiny, our potential godhood, ALL THE TIME. What, I believe, he is referring to, is that the pre-godhood of God is very little mentioned. That is true! The only time it is mentioned, is when someone quotes the Snow couplet to highlight our potential destiny, if we are obedient to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. This is an important distinction. We talk little about when God was once a man, because that’s all we know about it, that was once a man! However, there is much more scripture and detail on the future of man, than there is on the history of God.
Furthermore, I quote a comment I made in January, concerning this very subject, so I can pose the question again. If I were to step outside of my Church, my beliefs, the doctrine just doesn’t seem outrageous, but seems very logical:
Side question to all: Why is it so ridiculous to believe that sons and daughters, born of their parents, are destined to become like their parents, if they so choose? Does not God command us to be perfect, JUST AS HE is perfect? Is that not a commandment to become an all-loving, all-knowing, creator? Is not this the logical pathway of existence? Does not the begotten become like the begetter? If that is such the case in mortality, then why not it be the case in eternity? When you become a loving father in mortality after you have developed, does that take away from the respect, love, and devotion you have to your own father? Though there may be MANY fathers throughout man’s existence, does that change the special relationship you have with your own father?
Falcon asked, “Why are, or why do Mormons seem so wishy washy on this most fundamental of all teachings of their founding prophet Joseph Smith?” Are they embarrassed by it?
Falcon, I do not think that the LDS are embarrassed by it, I actually think most laypeople hold to these fundamental teaching more than the LDS Church’s well polished media machine would lead us to believe. Many of the members I know hold that Elohim is the “Jesus” of His planet, this explanation does bare some weight in light of Passages such as Moses 4:1-4. Now this to does not mean that the entire idea is not built upon the false premise that God was in fact once a man.
The reason that the LDS do not “emphasize it” in a public forum is because they wish to appear Christian in public, and this places them distinctly outside of Christianity because it portrays a different Christ.
Lautensack
“As man is God once was, as God is man may be.” This couplet communicates more than that God was once a man. It communicates that God was once a man as man is now. And traditionally that has been understood and interpreted by LDS leaders to mean he lived a mortal probation just like us to prove his worthiness unto godhood.
iamse7en, you asked –
“Side question to all: Why is it so ridiculous to believe that sons and daughters, born of their parents, are destined to become like their parents, if they so choose? Does not God command us to be perfect, JUST AS HE is perfect? Is that not a commandment to become an all-loving, all-knowing, creator? Is not this the logical pathway of existence? Does not the begotten become like the begetter?”
Remember now, we don’t believe in the pre-existence, that we are actual literal sons and daughters of heavenly Father. It isn’t ridiculous to believe that we can become like our earthly fathers and earthly mothers. They are made up of the exact same stuff and live in the exact same world as we do. There will be a disconnect here because you believe God was once a man made up of the exact same stuff, living in world much the same as we live in now. Traditional Christianity believes in a different God than LDS.
This is why thinking we can become a God just as God is God, is downright heresy. In trad Christianity, one will never inherit all of the divine powers that God has. A great downfall of humankind is men who want supreme power. It is the lie that Satan told Adam and Eve in the garden that they could become God. The same reason why Lucifer became Lucifer. He wanted all the powers God had.
iamse7en wrote, Why is it so ridiculous to believe that sons and daughters, born of their parents, are destined to become like their parents, if they so choose?
One how does someone choose their destiny? Two this entire question is based upon the false premise that God begot us, He did not, scripture states He created us.
Does not God command us to be perfect, JUST AS HE is perfect? Is that not a commandment to become an all-loving, all-knowing, creator? Is not this the logical pathway of existence?
While we are to be perfect it never says we are to be God. Thus we were created to be what we were created to be, that is instruments of God’s greater Glory as scripture states.
Does not the begotten become like the begetter? If that is such the case in mortality, then why not it be the case in eternity?
Well the Son is eternally like the Father, however since humans are created by, not begotten of, the Father again this argument is based upon a false presupposition that is contrary to scripture.
When you become a loving father in mortality after you have developed, does that take away from the respect, love, and devotion you have to your own father? No, it does not, actually it makes me respect my father more, however the difference is that the One Eternal God does not have a father, but rather is the First. Thus this argument falsely assumes that God the Father has a father, contrary to scripture.
Though there may be MANY fathers throughout man’s existence, does that change the special relationship you have with your own father?
No it does not. However there are not many True Gods throughout existence, though false ones are innumerable, (money,sex,etc). Thus again this argument is based upon the false assumption that there are many True Gods when scripture states that there is but One.
Your entire line of questioning is based upon false premises that at their root hold to the supposition that the Word of God is in error.
Lautensack
Aaron,
Above, you stated that ‘some Mormons believe that Satan could still repent and become a god.’ In all honesty, as a former Mormon now a Christian, I have never heard this. I was always taught Lucifer fallen had fallen and that was it….doomed to outer darkness following the final judgement. Now this in now way precludes that there may be some who believe it or it has been taught at one time or another. I’ve just never ever heard it taught.
Most of my family believes the Snow couplet, my father in particular. The idea is actively taught, although people almost never actually say “when I become a god, or when we become gods….”. It is always couched in terms of “become more like our Father in Heaven” or “achieve exaltation”.
When my wife and I first met and began talking about the church, her main statement was: “How can people who believe they will achieve godhood be called Christian”. I replied, “I know, I agree with you, but I guarentee that the beleive they are the consumate Christians.” The idea of achieving godhood is completely anti-thetical to Christianity. The whole point of believing in Christ as our Saviour is to realize our imperfections and sinfull nature, and that no matter how hard we try or what we do we cannot be like God on our own. Mormonism absolutely implies that God once sinned.
Eric, the idea that Satan can repent unto godhood is extremely rare but tolerated within Mormonism. You might need a strong, hot drink to wash this down:
These kinds of Mormons feel like like they can toss just about anything their past leadership has taught. For more funky theology see here. Some Mormons who hold to an extremely minimalist notion of what constitutes official, binding doctrine (a concept that itself is plagued with ambiguity) will say that only the Mormon canon, as interpreted by recently emphasized First Presidency declarations, is binding, and since the Mormon hierarchy has officially interpreted very few passages in the canon, Mormon theology is a massive free for all.
Mormon apologist Allen Wyatt intimated to me that we can’t even assume an individual Mormon is a theist, as once a person is a member they are free to confess privately held beliefs of almost any kind to their bishop and still remain in active fellowship.
It’s Friday… I hope you guys have more of a life than I do! 🙂
Grace and peace,
Aaron
Jeffrey and Lautensack,
Both of you hit on key differences in Mormon beliefs and traditional Christianity. The nature of God and the nature of man. The LDS have replaced a covenant relationship between the Creator and the creature with a plan of salvation. The reality is that they have traded in saving grace for “principals and ordinances” by instituting a man made form of the Law. So while the Christian looks forward to the Second Coming and the resurrection of the body the LDS are looking to some form of cosmic bureaucracy churning out planets and gods.
iamse7en,
What is up with the “ANTI”? Nobody called you an anti-Christian. I didn’t show up and tell you that 2,000 of Church tradition is an abomination. We do not use words like “begotten” from the Christian Creeds only after twisting the meaning.
I don’t want to get into this too much, because I did it way too much on my mission… However Lautensack said:
“Q: Does not the begotten become like the begetter? If that is such the case in mortality, then why not it be the case in eternity? Response: Well the Son is eternally like the Father, however since humans are created by, not begotten of, the Father again this argument is based upon a false presupposition that is contrary to scripture.”
To say that is contrary to scripture is very incorrect. To say “it’s contrary to MY INTERPRETATION of scripture” is okay to say. Hebrews 12:9: “Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?” Just as we have fathers of our flesh, God is the Father of our spirits. Not to mention Acts 17:29, which states we are the OFFSRPING of God, which is VERY different than saying we were CREATED by God. Offspring denotes we are BEGOTTEN not CREATED by God. There is much more scriptural support that we are literal children of God than there is that we are merely his creations. Therefore, it would be wiser for you to say “it’s contrary to MY INTERPRETATION of scripture.”
Food for thought on your other comment: Rev 1:5-6: “And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.”
In short, “Jesus Christ…hath made us kings and priest unto God and his Father.” Doesn’t this scripture show that God the Father, had a Father? Joseph Smith believed so.
iamse7en,
Unfortunately when Scripture is taken as a whole and not ripped outside of its context, it can be said that saying there is no God is not in contrary to scripture. Just read Psalm 14:1 see it says there is no God. Oh wait when the whole thing is read in context we see it is speaking of fools who utter such things in their hearts. Likewise Hebrews 12:9 cannot be take outside of the context of the book of Hebrews. We see in vs. 7 that we are being treated as sons, not that we are sons in the sense that I am the son of my earthly father. To jump to a conclusion that we are begotten by God is utterly unbiblical when we read so many places elsewhere that we become sons of God by adoption. (Jn 1:12, Rom 8:15,23; Gal 4:5; Eph 1:5)
Now the Acts 17:29 quote simply makes me laugh. Paul is mocking Greek philosophers, he knew the scriptures “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.” Proverbs 26:4-5 Paul here in Acts 17 is saying to some really, really “wise” men, I know something you don’t know, the whole unknown God part of vs. 22-28a. (Prv 26:4) Then he says look at the foolishness of your own presuppositions, you believe we are the offspring of the gods yet you think the divine is something found in gold or silver, vs. 28b-31. (Prv 26:5)
As for Revelation 1:5-6, I agree Jesus is the first born from the dead, as He is the True Man, He is also the true God note verse 8, however him making us to be Kings and Priests unto God the Father absolutely agrees with texts such as John 1:12 where we are given the right to become children of God, and this is the fulfillment of scripture as we are to be a royal priesthood called from darkness into marvelous light, (1 Pt 2:9) of whom Christ is the High Priest(Heb 9:11), as the True Man.
Finally please show me where the Bible proclaims that God the Father had a father. Does being a king or priest denote godhood?
Lautensack
We aren’t children of a Heavenly Father? Hmmm..
Num. 16: 22 (Num. 27: 16) God of the spirits of all flesh.
Mal. 2: 10 Have we not all one father?
Matt. 5: 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as YOUR Father.
Matt. 6: 9 (Luke 11: 2; 3 Ne. 13: 9)
OUR Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
John 20: 17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and YOUR Father; and to my God, and your God.
1 Cor. 8: 6 to us there is but one God, the Father.
Eph. 4: 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all.
Heb. 12: 9 subjection unto the Father of spirits.
Eph. 3:14-15 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
Deut. 14: 1 Ye are the children of the Lord your God.
Job 33: 4 breath of the Almighty hath given me life.
Ps. 82: 6 Ye are gods . . . children of the most High.
Eccl. 12: 7 the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
Isa. 42: 5 he that giveth breath . . . and spirit to them that walk.
Hosea 1: 10 Ye are the sons of the living God.
Acts 17: 29 we are the offspring of God.
Rom. 8: 16 Spirit itself beareth witness . . . we are the children of God.
Alma 40: 11 spirits . . . taken home to that God who gave them life.
D&C 46: 26 from God, for the benefit of the children of God.
D&C 76: 24 inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters of God.
D&C 77: 2 spirit of man in the likeness of his person.
D&C 88: 15 spirit and the body are the soul of man.
D&C 88: 15 spirit and the body are the soul of man.
D&C 88: 75 I may testify unto your Father, and your God.
Moses 6: 51 I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh.
To suggest that our divine heritage as children of God is not referenced in this scriptures is, well, I mean,—- uh,……….. I am speechless.
I reject your non-scriptural sources as authoritative.
Nm16:22 This makes perfect sense since God is God over everything and in no way means God is literally our father.
Mal2:10 The Father is Abraham, Malachi was writing to Jews.
Mt5:48 Jesus is speaking to Christians, teaching them.
Mt6:9 How else would Jesus teach people to pray, if to become a Christian is to become a child of God would we not pray to God as our father?
Jn20:17 Jesus was speaking to a Christian who He gave the right to become a children of God.(Jn 1:12)
1Cor8:6 Yet for us, that is Christians, not pagans who worship the so-called gods. Also this is esigesis as the verse no where denotes that the Father begot us.
Eph4:6 Paul is writing to Christians who have been adopted as stated in Eph1:5
Heb12:9 I explained this in the previous post.
Eph3:14-15 Yes all the saints (Christians) who are born again of God are in the whole family of God,does this mean that God has begotten us in some pre-mortal existence nope.
Dt14:1 Note that Moses is speaking to priests of God and heirs to the adoption of the old covenant (Lev19:28)
Job33:4 Note that it is the Spirit that made Elihu, not the father.
Ps82:6 If you read this in context the writer is speaking of men not Gods.
Ecc12:7 This does not denote begotteness, you eisegete it into the text, it says given, this simply explains that our spirits will return to God.
Isa42:5 Again this does not denote fatherhood in any way.
Hos1:10 Again this only makes sense in the contrast of “people who are not my people” as explained in Rom 9
Acts17:29 I explained this in the previous post.
Rom8:16 only makes sense in light of Rom 8:15 note adoption
We must not presuppose our sonship of God comes from anything other than our faith as Gal 3:26 states. To do otherwise is to make the same mistake as Job to which God will answer “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct Him? Let him who argues with God answer Him. Would you condemn Me to justify yourself?”
Lautensack
Simple question, in Mormonism where does the “man progressing to becoming a god” come from? What is the earliest Mormon reference concerning this? Is it in the BoM? Did Joseph Smith’s view of the nature of God “evolve”? Was it revealed to him or did he base it on the Bible or BoM text?
Just a word about Biblical interpretation, if you start with a supposition, a premise and then search the Bible for support, it can be found. Several years ago I became interested in the “health and wealth” gospel. I would read what the proponents of this teaching had to say based on their scriptual references, look in the Bible and conclude “How do they get that out of these scriptures?” So if you start with a supposition that we are literal progeny, off spring of a heavenly father and mother, all of the scriptures regarding us being sons of God will be shaded in interpretation to support that premise. This we do know, the Christian Church never recognized these concepts in 2,000 years of doctrine and theology. So the idea that these ideas were part of the Church at any point is flat out wrong. I have this vision of Martin Luther going off like a Roman candle if he were to encounter Mormon thought.
To get a glimpse of the changing nature of the doctrines of God and man, may I suggest The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine an article by Thomas G. Alexander a Mormon Historian and member of the LDS church. Lest I be called an “anti-Mormon”, this article won the 1980 Mormon History Association award for best article. I think that a brief quote from the article explains the point better than I could.
“Hence, on the doctrines of God and man, the position of the LDS church between 1830 and 1835 was probably closest to that of the Disciples of Christ and the Methodists, though differences existed.”
I have provided the link in order to not be accused of taking anything out of context.
https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_file_index&key=1065&name=115-6-15-29.pdf
The questions posed by iamse7en truly get to the heart of the matter (presuppositions and all). Traditional Christians are not children of God in the physical sense but we are by way of adoption.
Not only did God bestow tons of grace on us to bring us to Him but all also to be called sons – “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God” (I John 3:1)
A huge presupposition is that Mormons see God as being of the same kind of stuff as man. I once heard Bob Millet call God of the same “specie” as man. This is a huge difference in our starting points. These starting points, as others, are grounded in scripture. Your scriptures tell you that man and God had the same start and that we all are physical sons of God. While Mormons may say that the Bible gives clues to the idea of a pre-existence, I think fairness would dictate that one does not get a pre-existence from the Bible alone. The pre-existence is foundational to the LDS understanding, as mere rejection of creation ex nihilo does not produce the LDS view of sonship. Even if God constructed (not created) the world, including man, that would still make God mans’ maker and not Father.
These questions place a bunch of theology in the word “begotten”. Even if one viewed the word “begotten” as “literal physical offspring (sired?)” then it would still only apply to Jesus as in John 1 he is called (twice) the “only begotten”.
But there is ample evidence that “begotten” does not always need to mean “physical offspring”. Psalm 2:7 says, “I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” This verse is quoted later in Acts and Hebrews. The time frame tells us physical begetting is not in mind as the Son is already in existence when He begets Him.
part 2
Elsewhere in the Bible, “begotten” is used in a way that clearly is not physical. Paul had begotten the Corinthian church in I Corinthians 4; Paul also had begotten Onesimus in the book of Philemon.
Furthermore, there are times those on God’s side are referred to as being servants and not sons. This is the case with the parable of the vine growers, which is found in all of the synoptic gospels. Scripture is filled with references to God’s own as “servants” . . . like John 15:15 – “ No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.” Here the status of the disciples is shifted from slaves to friends but sonship is not mentioned.
Even Jesus is referred to as a servant! “Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased”. When Jesus is baptized in Matthew 12 He is called a servant by God Himself. This is an allusion to the Messianic references in the OT where the Messiah is called a servant.
I think part of the LDS problem is that they look at these passages in the KJV and as such put much emphasis on its nuances. Your reference in Acts to “offspring” is such an example. The Greek word mentioned there is “genos” (transliterated Greek). It can mean offspring, children, family, kind, or race. It is used elsewhere in the Bible as “kind” and other translators have chosen “children” for Acts 17:29 (like the NASB). So, I think you make something big, where linguistically nothing exists.
This is definitely the case with Matthew 5:48. The word rendered as “perfect” is “teleios” and it means complete, perfect, whole, full-grown, or mature. A tiger can be teleios for a tiger than does not mean he must become a higher being (like a man or god) just that he would be a whole, complete, or mature tiger.
part 3
Teleios is used elsewhere in the Bible, like Matt 19:21, and there in the KJV “perfect” is used again and “complete” is used in the NASB.
So, that is my INTERPRETATION. Just like your quotes from the scriptures is your INTERPRETATION. However, this is not just my interpretation but also that of Christianity going back to the apostles as well as that of every Jew (for OT passages). Your INTERPRETATION is the novel one as Christians from ever century (including the first century) never got from those passages what Mormons press upon them. Jews never thought God as their father in the way that Mormons do. The mountains of extra biblical evidence (both pre-Christian and Christian) is squarely in our favor and not yours. One does not see Jews, Christians, or anyone else making the same radical interpretations until the 19th century. Your beliefs look much more like the Paganism of the Mediterranean world that early Christians found themselves in.
My questions to Mormons are – Can anything be shown to you, from the Bible, to change your mind in terms of the nature and number of God(s)? How do you reconcile the non-literal references to sonship in the Bible? How do you reconcile the friend and servant references to God’s people (including Jesus) without calling them metaphorical/non-literal? Can anything can be shown to you from outside the Bible that demonstrates that God’s people never believed that God had a God or that we cannot become a god (or like god – as god)?
Clarity67: lol. Thanks for that. It’s funny to me that people can twist simple scriptures like the ones in Hebrews and Acts, to pervert the Holy Gospel. The fact that we are his literal children is the most important truth we can learn about ourselves from holy writ. This is a perfect example of why there are so many different interpretations (and thus different beliefs, and thus churches) of the Bible. This is exactly why there were, are, and will always be prophets.
As I said, there is a lot more evidence in the scriptures to prove we are the literal children of God, versus we are just his mere creations and not begotten by Him.
All in all, I’m glad to have helped generate such a good discussion. It’s nice to see from everyone’s honest perspective. This is also nice because it gives an open forum for faithful LDS to post their opinions on the matter as well. I like this blog: your bloggings pose more questions than anything else, to generate worthy discussion, and I have not been offended by anything too greatly. 🙂
iamse7en –
Did you even read Lautensack’s reply to clarity’s post? Some of the verses weren’t even referring to God the Father. Most certainly every verse was explained better in the traditional Christian context than in the Mormon one.
Please compare John 1:12 — we are given the ability to become God’s children through Christ, not because we were begotten as his children a-priori.
iamse7en,
I think you are dealing more with supposition than with any actual facts based on Biblical evidence. Could you please point me to the Bible references that teach us that there is a heavenly mother who along with a heavenly father procreate spirit children. Mormons are alone on this concept as well as mans’ progression to godhood. So that puts you outside of the mainstream of Christian thought. That in and of itself out to tip you off to something not being right with Mormon teaching.
iamse7en said,
“The fact that we are his literal children is the most important truth we can learn about ourselves from holy writ. This is a perfect example of why there are so many different interpretations (and thus different beliefs, and thus churches) of the Bible. This is exactly why there were, are, and will always be prophets.”
You know, iamse7en, last I checked, the only “Christians” claiming to believe in the pre-existence, heavenly mother, and being an actual child of God, IS the LDS church.
I would love it if you would list out any major, hey, even mediocre doctrine that Christian church’s do not agree upon. What Christians don’t agree that there is ONE God, that there is ONE heaven, that there is NO pre-existence, that we won’t become God’s ourselves and populate our own planets? That we are saved by faith, and not rituals and ordinances? That there is no sealing of families and polygamous unions in heaven?
On a more personal thought, I wish LDS would own up to the fact that they are completely different than Traditional Christianity and the only thing that is the same is the names and terms used (i.e. Jesus, God, Holy Spirit). See why some Christians really dont like LDS using the word Christian to describe themselves? You believe the exact opposite on things that we do.
iamse7en said, This is a perfect example of why there are so many different interpretations (and thus different beliefs, and thus churches) of the Bible. I absolutely agree that the bible has often been twisted, Peter said it would be, Isaiah said it would be, Jesus and all the apostles warned of false prophets and teachers that would arise as ravenous wolves scattering the flock. The reason this happens is found in scripture. It is because “men by their unrighteousness suppress the truth… become futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts were darkened” (Rom 1:18,21) They do this because they “despise wisdom and instruction” and “hate knowledge” (Prv 1:7,28) However “professing to be wise they became fools” (Rom 1:22) because they lust after “knowledge falsely called so” (1Tim 6:20) This is because there is no fear of God in them, for “the Fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge.” Therefore they are unable to “bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.” (2 Cor 10:15)
“Has God not made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1 Cor 1:20) Then why is it that Mormonism is based upon the false religions of Kabbalah, Masonry, the false nineteenth century philosophies of humanism and naturalism? Why is the god of Mormonism simply the product of Cosmological a skewed form of Darwinian natural selection? Atheist Richard Dawkins said “maybe somewhere in some other galaxy there is a super-intelligence so colossal that from our point of view it would be a god. But it cannot have been the sort of God that we need to explain the origin of the universe, because it cannot have been there that early.” This is almost identical to the Mormon concept of God. If the BOM was said to be allegorical by the LDS Church Dawkins might even join it. Oh the foolishness of men who hate God and “exchange the truth about God for a lie, worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator who is blessed forever!” (Rom 1:25 paraphrase mine)
Lautensack
It is interesting that using the fact that there are so many denominations, Mormons often draw the conclusion that all these denominations must have different doctrines. This is central to the first vision story, and gives them justification for the need to have one authoritative voice. And it gives justification for the ‘true Christian church’ to be organized under one beaurocratic body.
But, the thing is, the longer I’ve been a Christian, the more I see that this isn’t the true. Yes there are many denominations out there, but (with a few exceptions) Christians pretty much believe in the same doctrine. Oh, some Baptists for example think dancing is a sin, but on the really key doctrines like the nature of God, and salvation by grace alone, we pretty much agree. We consider that a believer, any believer, is in the ‘true church’ as long as they accept the Gospel as it is taught in the CONTEXT of the word, regardless of what denomination they belong to. When Christians say Mormons aren’t Christian, we aren’t trying to be mean or offensive, we are simply stating that Mormon Doctrine has placed the LDS church outside the Body of Christ. By thier own doing!!
Anyone can take a passage out of the bible and justify practically any belief. However, if we search the word and seek to understand the context (i.e. original Greek and Hebrew) rather than using any one church’s Topical Guide we can understand the true Gospel. Oh, and one more thing. The idea that God is our literal spiritual father might make intuative sense, but that doesn’t make it true. There are a lot of things in this world that don’t make sense, but certainly are true. For one thing, how can Mormons be so intellegent, wonderful people….yet they don’t get how they have placed themselves out of the body of Christ.
Lautensack,
I thought you would appreciate that last post. I threw everything (and the kitchen sink) that could be even remotely perceived as pertinent in it at the risk of being viewed as “reaching”, however, to make a point (the scriptures can be stretched) which was mentioned already by Falcon. Notwithstanding, although I agree with your eisegesis on some of these verses, the fundamental truth of our divine spiritual heritage is one not to be dismissed. If the scriptures mentioned (many of them) apply to Christians and their adoption into the family of God with Him spiritually begetting us (or we, being reborn) perhaps that is a starting point for common ground between us.
Now, you may maintain that our acceptance of Christ and our baptism and, hence, the corresponding covenant to take upon ourselves His name is false because of the first premise upon which you “allege” it is based. That is your interpretation and you are entitled to it, but I ask if you can possibly see that because we believe He truly is our spiritual Father, then, how all of the other threads of the recent posts (eternal progression, etc.) become significant to us??
Certainly you may disagree, but on the surface, all the ideas exchanged regarding our becoming like a loving Father who wants the best for His children (like all good fathers) appear more reasonable if in this one respective doctrine only. You may disagree with the following, but I can’t help but remember this scripture as it is relevant here.
Matt 7:9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall YOUR Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
OH, and btw, this is the sermon on the mount – don’t tell me that everyone there was Christian and He was referring to them in that context.
I don’t think the LDS Church is holding back on teaching its people that they can become a god. I was attending a local Mormon ward up the street from me recently to talk with the Mormon folk and asked to go to the gospel principles class. They kindly obliged. The teacher was a young girl and announced that we would be looking at chapter 1 of “Gospel Principles”. I was happy to hear this.
The teacher read the quote on page 9 that says: “Everything that he (Heavenly Father) does is to help his children become like him – A GOD.” I raised my hand and said, “Excuse me, I have to confess since I am not a member of the Church that when I read this I thought this was a misprint. Do all of you really believe that you are going to become a god some day?” A woman sitting in front of me turned around and said, “Yeah, pretty intense, huh?”
I replied, “You think you will be a god even though the Bible clearly states that you will not?” The missionary sitting behind me took the bait and took me to Psalms 82:6 and read it. I said, “Yes, the judges of Israel as seen by the Israelites. Well, let’s look at the next verse. Verse 7 says that ‘ye shall die like men’. Do gods die?” No response from the teacher or missionaries. I then read to the class Isaiah 43:10-12. That disturbed some people and the class ended with testimony bearing! It doesn’t get any clearer than Isaiah 43:10-12. Nobody is going to become a god and there are no other gods – anywhere! There is only the one true God!
No, the LDS Church “straight out the chute” teaches its members that they can become a god. It’s in chapter 1 of “Gospel Principles” and just continues throughout. After all, exaltation is the ultimate goal of every Mormon I know. This is the epitome of blasphemy to even think such a thing. I am fearful of even thinking of the idea. I’ve got a lot of guts and boldness to do just about anything, but to even think that I could be like the Almighty makes me fear Him and is crazy.
There really is no middle ground on this. In order to make it palatable to those outside of Mormonism, this concept must be couched in “be like god” language. That’s dishonest and why Mormons are seen either as either blantant liars or being unsure of their own basic doctrine. I think it’s both. Mormons know that such doctrine offends the sensibilities of people so they lie for the Lord. It’s justified by saying that newbees just can’t understand such deep and complex truths. This approach is part of Mormon culture. Joseph Smith and the leadership lied continually about plural marrage. Even after the 1890 manifesto ending the practice, they continued in it in order to become a state. The Mormon missionary response to the “becoming a god” question is to “don’t answer the question they ask, answer the question they should have asked”. The last prophet of the church played this game in public in one well documented interview.
I’m interested to know how the LDS reconcile the account of Adam and Eve with their doctrine on becoming gods?
It clearly states that Adam and Eve were tricked by Satan into thinking they could “become like God” if they ate from the tree- and we are all cursed for it!
How do they reconcile this? Do they say that Genesis has been tampered with?
lillym,
Bringing up Adam and Eve opens up a whole new can of worms. Mormons don’t believe that the fall of Adam was a curse, rather they believe it was a necessity…A fall upwards if you will. They believe that Adam and Eve were given two commandments by God in the garden: 1) multiply and replentish the earth, and 2) don’t eat of the tree. Further, they believe that these two commandments are incompatable, because they don’t believe that Adam and Eve could have procreated without eating of the tree of knowlege of good and evil. Of course there is nothing in Genisis to support this, but essentially it means that God commanded them to sin in thier perview. So, not only does the Mormon gospel leave open the possibility that God could have sinned (before he became God), he actually commanded Adam and Eve to sin. Of course, in this twisted Gospel, Satan plays a key role in God’s plan.
Of all the atributes of God, we must ask do Mormons believe that God is immortal, omniscient, omnipresent, ect. The answer is no, they don’t because thier very doctrine refutes the very definition of these words. Mormons worship a different non-existant god(s) in my view. The Christian community needs to continue to stand up and say: “NO, we love you and think you are great people, but you are not Christian.” These notions are very offensive to the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
There are basically two questions that we have been dealing with here. First of all, the Mormon doctrine of man progressing to becoming a god and secondly, how Mormons present this doctrine to those outside of their religion. On the first point, as Christians we see the progression to godhood not just as aberrant but as heretical and blasphemous. There is no tradition or doctrine in the Christian faith that even remotely hints at God once being a man or that man can become a god. For Mormons this is a real plus and demonstrates to them that it has to be true because the traditional Christian faith rejects it. So what Christians see as blasphemous, Mormons see as a blessing. It is the world of Christianity turned up-side-down. The second point gets to the veracity of the Mormon religion. The doctrines of the Mormon religion are so distasteful to mainstream Christians that they (doctrines) either have to be denied, equivocated, watered down or, in some cases, changed by Mormons because of societal pressures. In the end, its the psychological hook of the personal testimony that keeps the true believing Mormon chugging along even in the face of embarrassment or solid evidence that Joseph Smith is not a prophet and that the Mormon Church is not true. When all else fails, repeat the testimony, ignore the evidence.
I thought it was interesting that Berean mentioned that when challenging questions were asked in a Gospel Essentials class, noone could answer the questions and the discussion ended in an impromtu testimony meeting. If I had a nickle for every time I’ve seen this happen………..
It speaks to falcon’s comment above which discusses the psycological hook of the personal testimony. It can’t be challenged, because another person cannot see or feel what is going on inside one’s own head. Missionaries are taught to do this when put into a corner….”all else fails, bear your testimony.”
THis is why it is so important to stick tightly to the word (in CONTEXT).
ERIC,
2 Ne. 28: 30- (In Isaiah 28: 10,13,17, we are taught the same thing):
30 For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.
So people should bear testimony ignorantly- comment on things they know nothing about?? So LDS are suppose to be all-knowing in their own doctrine? This is ridiculous. It would be fake to bear testimony of things you don’t have a knowledge or understanding of…and prudent/wise and necessary to bear testimony of things you DO know…this is probably a new concept to many evangelicals who are commonly found, on this website, to speak ignorantly about the restored gospel…especially when it comes to temples, AHEM –AARON— it might be wise to assume many of you might have to start where the rest of us started, the beginning, the basics, before trying to comprehend everything right away. You find criticism because you lack understanding and a firm foundation and testimony in His restored gospel. One thing at a time, and that goes for LDS as well, they are certainly not exempt from the consequences of their pride.
Amanda said
So Amanda,please tell me then, has the Lord given you or any one else that is LDS an answer to the Question Berean asked about how many verses in Scripture CLEARLY STATE, Their was NO GOD BEFORE ME and their will be NO GODS AFTER ME.
How can God the Father say, I know of no other Gods when His Father was/is a God, when Jesus is a seperate God, and when God says in the Pearl, I sat in the Councel of the gods and WE create man and earth.
Either the Bible is wrong or the pearl is wrong. Please give an answer and if you do not have one, seek on out from the LDS church since they should be able to provide one. Rick b
I’m getting rather exhausted with the whole “You don’t understand the concept of God having a Father God because your not LDS yourself or that simply too much for someone to comprehend. Why then does the LDS church pride themselves on having clear and true answers? Is it really that tough for someone to understand the idea of God having a father? It’s not rocket science. I can compare it to me and my dad. I understand it completely, but its still false doctrine. Unless you want to disregard what God’s holy word tells us.
Amanda, I don’t think Berean really believes any of the LDS lay-members have an answer to his questions. I think Berean asks the questions to try and help open up the minds of you and other LDS people to the words written in the Bible. Also, I think it eventually gets lay-people tired of hearing of these issues within Mormonism and eventually, the higher ups will have to come in and give some answers. Thats the thing though, LDS general authorities choose to keep their mouths closed and leave it up to the lay-people to defend their doctrine thats in question. If the prophet has the answer, its VERY unfair of him to let his lay-members have to deal with those pesky Christians questioning their doctrine.
Jeffery,
This is the deal, you can’t understand LDS teaching and doctrine (men to gods et al) until you receive a “testimony” that it’s true. Once you receive that testimony that it’s true then you will believe it and will qualify to understand it. Christians are disqualified from ever understanding it because we don’t believe it. So believe it, get a testimony, then you’ll understand it…..maybe…kind of…..when more truth is revealed to you. Those of us who study Mormonism intently and extensively will never really understand it because we have no testimony. It’s all very clear to me. Is it clear to you?
Oh! I brought up the Adam and Eve thing before I remembered I’d seen a conversation regarding that topic a few months ago here – will have to go back and read it again.
But basically, they DO deny the account of Adam and Eve as it is written in the Bible. So it makes sense – that account had to be turned upside down, to justify their beliefs that they will be gods someday.
Not that the world rises and sets on my posts but . . . I noticed that when a Mormon poses deep theological questions, Christians are quick to answer. However, when a Christian asks straight and pertinent questions to Mormons . . . well, I don’t want to make an argument out of silence so it would be nice if Mormons would reciprocate 🙂
Amanda, can any non-Mormon articulate Mormon doctrine well? You make vague accusations that Christians don’t understand your faith, but you fail to tell us exactly where we are wrong. It is clear that we do not beleive Mormonism to be true, no surprise there. However, do you think it is possible to accurately define Mormonism yet not beleive in it? Can you name any non-Mormon who has gotten Mormonism right? Do you think you know as much (or as little) about our faith as we do about yours?
I single you out for your behavior. You do not seem to even care if the discussion heads towards the gutter. This is not true of all Mormons who have posted here, but it is true of you. Do I need to get snide and quote Matt 7:17-19 to you, or can we chat about the church fathers or something else more elevated? How about god the grand father?
lillym,
Satan tricked Adam and Eve into taking the fruit, but did he lie when he said they could “be like God”? (Genesis 3:4-5 “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”)
No he did not lie. Take a look furhter in the chapter and see what God Himself said about Adam and Eve after they partook of the fruit –
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
So man had become like God knowing good and evil. So this knowledge of the difference between good and evil is a divine attribute which man has because of the Fall of Adam. To me this sounds more like a blessing than a curse. The ousting of man from Eden and the coming of death and the work for survival are more like a punishment than a curse.
But anyway, Satan did not lie to Adam and Eve about becoming like God, he only lied when he said they will not die (Gen 3:4).
lillym,
It isn’t that Mormons deny the Genisis account. Joseph Smith just added the entire backstory, the pre-existance/war in heaven, and a lot more detail into the story as it reads in the Bible. Most of these ideas of multiple gods, plan of salvation, even polygamy are justified from Smith’s rewriting of the story in the Pearl of Great Price. If something is contradictory in the Biblical account, of course plain and precious truths have been lost…..
Amanda,
When I suggested that Mormons couldn’t answer questions, I wasn’t suggesting that Mormons don’t know thier doctrine. Rather, I was referring to the inability to answer questions to Berian’s (and most other Christian’s) satisfaction when shown that key theological ideas in Mormonism are un-Biblical and antithetical with belief in Christ (i.e. Y’all are great people and we love you, but your beliefs place you outside the umbrella of Christianity).
David,
“Amanda, can any non-Mormon articulate Mormon doctrine well?”
Sure. On this site though, it is often ignorantly stated with malicious intentions. And when I say malicious, I don’t mean to simply disagree- I mean the tone in which things are stated, and the verbiage used- it lacks charity and respect of other people’s beliefs- what they hold sacred. I believe you can charitably disagree or state differing points of view- a virtue that is rarely exhibited by authors AND posters on this site.
“You make vague accusations that Christians don’t understand your faith, but you fail to tell us exactly where we are wrong”
I believe I have mentioned several points of disagreement on this site, where other Christians misunderstand the restored gospel- being true to my beliefs, where I believe they are wrong. One of which is the issue of works, another would be the relationship of the trinity, priesthood, polygamy, our purpose here on earth, and so many other things. I also avoid many other topics that are pointless to address, because of the reasons taught us in that scripture I cited.
Let me say, for clarity sake, that if you simply disagree with the restored gospel-when done with charity and humility- I don’t find it offensive- I find it interesting and important. So I would appreciate very much if individuals responding to my post acknowledge this instead of propagate that I’m somehow afraid of your positions. I will freely admit, however, that it is a point of annoyance for me (a flaw of mine) when there is serious misunderstandings (and no interest in understanding) of positions on very important doctrinal points, SUCH AS works. Probably the most embellished differences in Christian debate.
I regret that I cannot adequately respond to everyone, I hope you all understand and if you find it particularly important that I respond to your queries or comments, email me: [email protected].
“(i.e. Y’all are great people and we love you, but your beliefs place you outside the umbrella of Christianity).”
So if we are outside of your circle of Christians, does that mean we are not entitled to His grace, because of something we are DOING? I thought works were irrelevant and grace was free? I certainly have faith in Christ…and a relationship with Him. Your comment and position is extremely puzzling…even to someone who grew up reading the bible.
As un-Christian as you might consider me, it is HIS gift to give, not YOUR show to run. And if there is something I am doing or not doing (work) that is keeping me from this free gift, you are completely and fundamentally disagreeing with your own position of Grace and works.
Your comment was tantamount to saying “neener neener neener!” I thought we were all sinners! But somehow you think that because the Christian majority accepts YOUR view of the bible, that somehow you are more worthy? More worthy of His Grace? How prideful! I’m truly astonished! How ironically un-Christian for someone with the Christian stamp of approval to say! I believe He knows His sheep… not the Christian coalition. Let Christ make those decisions, ok?
EEGADS!
Clairty67,
Yes, Matthew 7:7-11 is in the sermon on the Mount, as is what is referred to as the Lord’s Prayer. (Mat 5:6-15) These two passages are linked. And yes not everyone who was there was a believer. However Jesus was teaching those who would believe, comparing God the Father to evil earthly fathers, for all men are evil(v11), as the giver of good and perfect gifts. Now the word Your Father you seem to have trouble with, this denotes that He is speaking to believers(past, present, future) even in such a public forum. Why? In just ten verses He states, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.” (v21-23 bold emphasis mine) Here we see Jesus using the personal pronoun My. Why would He switch pronouns mid-sermon? Why not say your or our? This is where allowing scripture to interpret scripture is a wonderful thing, as this discontinuity should be troublesome for anyone who claims to believe the bible. Moses said we were created.(Gen 1:27,2:6-7) Paul said that we are adopted Children of God by faith.(Gal 3:26;4:5) Thus while many will say “Lord, Lord” not all participate in the adoption (Rom 9:3-6) and thusly are not sons of God but rather children of wrath.(Eph 2:3) Of course this explanation only works if one actually believes all of scripture and not just the parts that correlate with their personal theology.
Clarity I pray that God will open your blind eyes that you might love Truth and not be deluded “by the activity of Satan’s power and false signs and wonders, and all the wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.” (2 Thes 2:9 paraphrase mine)
Lautensack
so Amanda, no thoughts on the Issue of God saying, I know of no other Gods, then He says I sat in the councel of the Gods, plus the other issues along that Line I brought up?
Plus what about the scriptures that speak of False teachers and false PROPHETS and people who love lies and darkness. the Scriptures speak about false teachings and Different Gospeles, Gal 1:8-9 but since you feel this does not apply to you or to LDS even though many LDS are honest and say, WE have a different Gospel, then when we say these verses apply yo LDS, You guys get mad.
So Do be like the LDS David was speaking about who run from hard questions and answer mine, but also tell me, what teaching fall under these false teachers and Prophets since LDS claim ALL religions have Some Truth. Some Truth cannot save, only Jesus can save.
Even the BoM teaches their are only 2 Churches and one is true and one is false, so who is it, US, YOU Or someone else. Why can the BoM make that claim, but we cannot make that claim? Rick b
Amanda,
I agree, the choice is Christ’s in who He will save and who He will not. That is the Glory of Grace, there is no merit involved. However even Christ warned of false teachers in sheep’s clothing that are underneath ravenous wolves. There are those who depart from sound doctrine that bring blessings and sweet words and deceive the hearts of men. Because of this He brought up shepherds to defend the flock from without and within. This is why Paul tells us to loose these men and women over to Satan and expose their evil deeds.
Now you say that just because the “Christian majority”* accepts our view the bible somehow makes us more worthy. I disagree. It is because Christians accept scripture as our only authority pertaining to that which it speaks to, especially salvation, that our view is different from yours. Is ours correct? Yes. On what authority? On the authority of 2000 years of Church History, the words of the Apostles and Prophets, and Christ Jesus, the True God made flesh, who all the scriptures testify to. Your church calls mine the Church of the Devil (1 Nephi 14:10) yet for some reason I am unable to say that yours is false and define what is, and has historically been, the Church, which the gates of hell will not prevail against?
Lautensack
*There is no such thing as a Christian majority, Christian is not an adjective it’s a noun.