Do You Really Want to Become a God?


When I was very young, I became ill. The medicine my mother was going to administer was of the worst kind, in my mind, and there was no way I was going to obediently take it. So, I quickly hid in a closet, closed my eyes, bowed my head, and said “Dear Heavenly Father, please give me a magic wand, so that I can make myself better”.

That was a pretty silly prayer to expect God would answer, I doubt many would argue. And yet, how many of us have been pretty close?

We don’t know an answer to a test question: God, is it B, D, or E?

We are stuck in traffic: God, please get these people off the road.

We are lonely: God please send me a soul mate.

We are tired: God, please get my boss to let me go home.

We want a nice car: God, please get me a raise.


How many of us have ever thought, if only I were God?

Think of the possibilities.

You could think the thought, and make the neighbor’s dog stop barking.

You could wiggle your finger, and your son’s tattoo would be gone.

You could simply want some breakfast, and it would appear, bedside.

What would you get for yourself, if you were a god? How about:

A mansion with swimming pool and tennis courts and servants?

An intergalactic Lamborghini?

The best-looking, most fun, sexiest lover to be had (or many of them)?

Or, thinking on a larger scale, would you, if you were a god:

Establish world peace?

Abolish diseases? Flies? Weeds?

Get rid of crime, poverty, societal problems of every kind?

(How noble of you. J)

What do you think you would do with your “power” if you were a god? Take a minute, think it over.

Ok. Here are some other questions pertaining to godhood that you may not so readily ask yourself:

Would I have to be “perfect”? What would that mean? Could I be angry? Jealous? Could I prefer something over another thing? Could I love? Hate? Be excited? Have to not get excited?

What would my responsibilities be? Would I have to answer to anyone?

Who would I be responsible to/for? Would I have to spend godhood the way God is? Would I have to have spirit children? Would I have to answer my children’s prayers night and day, day and night, for thousands of years?

Will I allow free agency for my spirit children? Will I have to? If so, what will I do about the ones who hate me? Who sacrifice my other children to idol gods? Who want to follow other gods in the universe besides me? What will I do with the ones who rape, murder, torture, defile my other children? Will I create a hell for them? Will I destroy them?

What if I just don’t allow free agency? Is there any thing wrong with that?

What if I don’t want all that responsibility? Will I have to have it, or can I say “no”, that I’d rather just populate my world with cool plants and animals? Will that make me a lesser god?

What if I get tired of being a god? Can I opt out? Can I give my world over to a different god to run for me? Can I just assume that once I am in heaven, I will always want to be a god, and for eternity, I will never change my mind? Never get tired and want to do something else? Will I be eternally content? Happy with being a god?

It may be easy to dismiss any or all of these kinds of questions with a “well, we’ll know later”. Easy for us to dismiss what “god” means, by just saying “well, he was like us, so, whatever!”

The prayer I offered up for a magic wand revealed my childlike understanding of God and how miracles happen. I am older now, and I have learned much more about “reality”. And yet, there is so much that I don’t know and may never understand.

I do believe, however, that if we were created by God, then there is an absolute truth about God, about what it means to be a god, and about whether or not godhood is possible for anyone besides God.

Consider the possibility that there is a One, a Power, a Knowledge, a Wisdom, a Presence that is so far above everything else as to be The Absolute. It knows so much more than me, that I could spend forever just learning about it and from it. It is so much more loving than I am, that I could spend forever being happy just being close to it. It has so much more than I do, that for eternity, I will never lack for provision, work, play, rest, enjoyment, growth, etc. It is infinitely personal and relational and intimate. He is so complete in himself that I will never ultimately need anything else but Him.

The Holy Bible suggests that God is like this.

It says God is everywhere; there is no place where He is not.

It says God is eternal; there was never a time when He was not God.

He has ALL of the power; He is absolutely Sovereign.

He is the source of everything; there is nothing that can exist without Him.

The Holy Bible’s description of God eliminates the possibility of there being more than one of them. How could there be, with attributes like these?

On this forum there are basically two God views up for grabs. Neither can explain where God came from. Neither can explain how or why He became God.

But personally, the Biblical view gives me peace I never had when I subscribed to the other view. It takes the illusion of control away from me. It absolves me from making myself my own hero. I have such freedom of mind and soul, knowing that God created me, that He worked/is working out my salvation, and that He will be my heaven when this life is over. Given what He has created and surrounded me with so far, I’m extremely excited to find out what He has planned!

About setfree

God trusting, Bible believing, Jesus lover.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

206 Responses to Do You Really Want to Become a God?

  1. liv4jc says:

    No where is scripture is the fall of Adam and Eve seen as a good thing.

    For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. (Romans 5:10-14)

    “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Cor 15:22)

    And we see in Romans 8:19-22 that the whole creation (universe) was brought into corruption by the sin of Adam, “For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.”

    Redemption through the blood of Christ reconciles man(who all fell in Adam) to God. This fall brought death, sickness, pain, and suffering. Mercifully, God did not destroy man when he fell, but it was His plan from eternity to glorify Himself through our redemption. And not only man, but the whole universe will be remade whole again.

  2. shematwater says:


    The real problem is that you do not distinguish between the doctrine of the church and what idividuals believe. If you are just speaking about different view points you should say so, rather than just saying “many mormons believe this” because it is misleading (though it may be accurate).

    About Satan being the originator of the idea of Deification, I am sorry. I think Andy is the one that made the comments I refered to.

    As to God being the Father of our spirits, and Christ our Father through adoption, I think Ralph did a great job at explaining it. I am late for class right now, so I will give you the references you requested in an hour or so.

  3. jackg says:

    Andy Watson,

    You are indeed a blessing! Thank you for the time and energy you put into research. Perhaps at times it might seem hopeless when you get the responses you get from the LDS. But, you are in the ministry to which God has called you, and that is very clear. Persevere, my brother!


    I wish you would take a step back and look at what you write. Your reasoning is nothing more than the regurgitation of LDS leaders. Andy is right when he suggests that the Mormon view of God’s plan of salvation is grounded in the idea that God needed sin for his plan to come to pass. We’re talking about God who is HOLY, where no unclean thing can dwell with Him. Why would he require sin to come into the world? The quote Andy provides from the manual proves that the Mormon view of the plan of salvation is indeed perverted. God wanted Adam to sin? Come on, Ralph, that shows a gross misunderstanding of the character and nature of God.


  4. shematwater says:

    I just have to say a few things on this last post by Jack

    First, God did not want Adam to sin. For a person to sin they must first know Good from Evil, and Adam did not have this knowledge, so his act was not a sin.
    What God did want was for man to be able to choose right or wrong. There had to be a dicission made or there could be no true salvation. God put Adam in the Garden and ga ve him a choice. Adam did not understand good and evil, so for him neither choice would have been a true sin.
    God wants agency and there was no other way to garuntee this. Without sin there can be no righteousness. Without Evil there can be no Good. Without agency man could not choose between these opposites, and thus there could be no justice in salvation or damnation.

    (This is also why we believe that young children cannot sin, because they lack understanding.)

  5. shematwater says:


    Here are few references. I do understand that you will most likely see each one differently, but to me the meaning of them is clear.

    God the Father of Spirits
    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?”
    In comparing our Earthly Fathers to God it seems clear that God is our Father. Why do we give reverence to our Earthly fathers? Because they are our fathers, they bore us, gave us life. In like fasshion, and for teh same reason, we are to be in subjection to the Father of our spirits. If he was not our literal Father the comparrison would be flawed and thus Paul would not have used it.
    Ephesians 4: 4-6 “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”
    I give several verses here because the list is what is important to see why I say it means what it does. Each thing is listed separately, that there is only one of them. Notice the separation of the one Lord (Jesus) and the one God and Father of All. Here God is said to be the Father of all men.
    (To be Continued)

  6. shematwater says:

    Now, the verses in Ephesians only truly make sense for our purposes when we realize that it is the Faithful who are the sons of God (or Christ).

    John 1: 12 “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.”
    Romans 8: 14-15, 23 “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. . . . And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for theadoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.”
    In Romans we see that not only the gentiles (spoken of in 14-15) but also the jews (having the firstfruits) are adopted to Christ through faith.
    2 Corinthians 6: 18 “And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.”
    Ephesians 1: 5 “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.”
    Revelation 21: 7 “He that overcometh shall inheirit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.”

    All these show that it is through our faith that we adopted unto Christ, making him our Father. Most of these verses are spoken by Christ himself, or quoting what he said.

  7. shematwater says:

    Now, there is also the concept of adoption into the seed of Abraham, as taught in Galations.

    Galatians 3: 7, 29 “Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. . . And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

    This is also spoken of by John the Baptist
    Matthew 3: 7-9 (Luke 3: 8) “But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath tocome? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.”

    The promise of the covenant was given to Abraham and his seed, and in order for anyone to partake of it they must be of that line, and through faith and baptism they are made his seed, and through obedience they become Christ’s.

    Now, as shown in the first post in this series, Heavenly Father is the Father of All. From these last verse we know that Abraham is the father of the faithful, who were begotten in Christ (1 Corinthians 4: 15) and become his sons and daughter by adoption.

    As I said, this seems very clear to me, and the meaning of these passages seems clear. I am willing to admit that others have their own beliefs concerning this.
    (Also, I only said that God being the Father of our spirits was taught plainly in the Bible, I did not claim the adoption to Christ was.)

  8. shematwater says:

    A few other references that show clearly that God is the Father of our spirits.

    Psalms 82: 5-6 “They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
    I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.”
    In verse five he tells us that the world did not understand, and then in verse six he tells us how it really is. We are literally children of the Most High, which is what the world did not understand.

    Acts 17: 29 “Forasmuch then as we are the offpring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.”
    In here we are given a different term. While I will admit that it is easy to see the term Son as being symbolical, the term offspring is not. It is never used in a symbolical way at any time in the scriptures, and thus I see no good reason to claim it is used in such a way here.

    Job 38: 4-7 “Where wast thou when I laid he foundation of the earth?…Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
    This really just goes to the point that it is our spirits that are his children, and not our bodies. Our bodies did not yet exist when we (the sons of God) shouted for joy, so it must have been our spirits that were his children.

    Isaiah 45: 9-11 “Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? …Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What begettest thou?… Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me.”
    Here God makes a comparrison to both creation and child baring. The clay being our physical bodies, the child being our spirits. He is saying that he has made our bodies, but he has born our spirits, and thus we are to ask him concerning both.

  9. liv4jc says:

    Shematwater. Those are good scripture references. I’m glad to see that you are studying your Bible. Keep it up. There is a problem however with your use of the quotes. You are eisegeting again instead of exegeting. By this I mean that you are importing ideas from an LDS perspective into the texts. You are assuming a pre-mortal existence . The Bible does not teach a pre-mortal existence and unless you import that theology you would never arrive at that conclusion. From beginning to end human beings are described as created beings. Both body and spirit. Your ideas come from JS’s revelations and the PoGP, not exegesis of the Bible.
    The sons of God in Job 38 are angels, which were created before man and the earth. We don’t know much about them, but we do know man was not created until the 6th day when God created Adam out of clay and breathed life (spirit) into him.

    Why are you quoting the Bible, anyway? Did the President or one of the Apostles tell you to use those verses in that way? How do you know that those portions of scripture weren’t perverted by the Hellenists? Since the BoM contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel why did you not quote it or the further revelations of JS, which are a restoration?

    Here’s an idea. Since you only quote the Bible when you think it supports your position, but denigrate it when it refutes your position, cut it out of your canon completely. From now on come at us pagans with the full force of the truth of scripture by the revelations of the prophet of the restoration. They do contain the fulness, don’t they? And why hasn’t a Mormon defended JS’s view in the KFD yet about God not being able to create anything, even us? I’m waiting to be dazzled with a brilliant response strictly from LDS scripture.

  10. Michael P says:

    Pooka, going back to the beginnning of the thread, you asked about co-heirs. Others addressed it, and I basically agree. But I think it helps to look at what an heir is, and what the testator is, and what the two mean when looked at together. This is a bit of a legal concept, but I am starting my 2nd year of law school, so forgive me. 🙂

    But an heir is basically someone who inherits something from a predecessor, where the predecessor is almost always deceased. The person who is “willing” something to an heir gives up the whatever it is, whether it be property or title.

    Even before studying law, I’ve always viewed co-heirs as symbollic and not literal. If it were literal, how could God give up the title? Symbollically, it makes more sense because it can refer to something as simple as eternal life, which we will inherit.

    But I don’t think we are literal heirs, because God is always, has been and will be, been God.

  11. Rick B says:

    I could be an LDS prophet, Since Many times I pointed out LDS will seem to Disappear and avoid questions. Pooka seems to have gone silent, and even if Pooky replies since I am saying something, I notice as I pointed out to pooky, LDS are not answering questions flat out addressed to them, Need names and times Pooky? I said I would provide them. Rick b

  12. liv4jc says:

    Amen Rick. I’m still waiting also, but we have to remember that there is an extremely long list of questions to answer. Like I said before: I’m sure they’re just pouring over the mountains of LDS wisdom waiting to blow us away with a fully exegeted doctrinal assault.

    The good news is that I’m sure others are reading this and finding the answers for themselves, which is kind of my goal anyway. I don’t expect sold out Mormons to listen to us and change their views, although I’m always praying that they will.

    By the way. I enjoy your posts and liked your blog.

  13. Michael P says:

    Rick, yes, they do. I haven’t been around much the last few days, so can’t really criticize others for that… But I do try to answer questions when they are asked, and try to address every point. LDS don’t, for whatever reason, though I think there are reasons that make more sense for the silence on certain issues.

    Lv4jc, a few weeks ago, under the thread for “Worth Fighting Over” ( Shem and I discussed essentially the same thing you describe. Shem essentially told me that the Bible does make sense once you look at it from their perspective, even though it does not make logical sense. In fact, he told me in effect to ignore the words and look at what it taught.

    Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. Words do have meanings, and we should try to figure out what those are rather than make them fit what we think they should. Its a matter of getting meaning out of words verses putting meaning into them.

    The multiplicity of gods is a great example, because we view God saying he doesn’t know of any others as being what those words mean. LDS have to twist it (by addition) to say something like he’s the only god he knows who we are to worship. (This is but a part of the Trinity discussion.)

    I’d agree with him that their views can make sense, but also that you have to ignore what is plainly written for them to make sense. And I cannot ignore what is plainly written.

  14. liv4jc says:

    Not wanting to be a pot that calls the kettle black, when I get home tonight I will provide an answer (from scripture) about how we can be co-heirs with Christ.

  15. falcon says:

    OK Mormons posters, you can relax. The falcon’s back from his consulting gig. I know many of you were anxiously awaiting my return. I did get a chance to tune in a couple of times and read the posts on my Blackberry.
    What I found amusing was the charge laid out here that the Christian posters don’t know anything about Mormonism and a list of some of our best (Christian) posters was generated. It kind of reminded me of a ninety-nine pound weakling threatening a 260 pound linebacker from a safe distance.
    I think our Mormon posters need to come to grips with the fact that it’s Mormons who don’t have a very good grip on Mormonism. I would invite the readers to pay a visit to:
    About fourteen articles down, there’s an interesting piece titled: “Internet Mormons vs. Chapel Mormons. The premise of the writer is that there are two types of Mormonism represented within the Salt Lake City sect of Mormonism. There are several links provided to various articles addressing this phenomenon. It’s clear that there’s a buffet of selections and that the SLC sect members have a real problem defining what they believe in.
    Also, I’ve pointed out that there are several different sects of Mormonism with widely divergent views. For example, the Community of Christ (which was headed by Joseph Smith’s son) and the Church of Christ-Temple lot, do not believe that God was once a man or that men can progress to becoming gods-our topic here. They more closely resemble BoM Mormonism. Also, they do not canonize the BoA. The FLDS holds fast to the doctrine and practice of polygamy which Joseph Smith “revealed” was necessary for minigod status. The SLC LDS denomination is pretty much out of it, drawing into question the status of their prophets in Mormonism.
    So it would seem that our Mormon posters here pretty much are giving us their opinions, which in the big picture of Mormonism isn’t really worth much.

  16. Mike R says:

    Michael P, Liv4JC, Rick,

    I just received the “The Cross”, the newsletter
    from Concerned Christians, in Mesa AZ. This issue
    has the testimony of Andy Poland,(Gen.Manager).
    It’s a great article as it touches on some of the
    points discussed here. I’ll quote some of it:

    ” My Mormon picture of God was that He was a man
    like me. In fact there were three gods that were
    men that ruled over my mormon life.Jesus was my
    older brother and perfect example of how to be-
    come a god. The Holy Ghost was another brother
    that had figured out how to achieve godhood and
    Elohim …was my literal father in heaven. Elohim
    had proved himself faithful on another world and
    had received godhood for his reward.These gods had
    become my equal.They were simply colleagues that had learned the proper way to perfect themselves
    and bring glory to their names.My identity was
    wrapped up in the idea of who these gods were….
    I perceived the world differently as a Mormon…
    The truth about my Mormon god was….He was just
    a man that existed before me who was trapped in
    His physical body.He could only be in one place
    at one time and was dependant on other gods for
    His power and dominion.
    My view of God and myself changed drastically
    when I became a Christian.In contrast to the
    finite gods of Mormonism, God had always been
    the only God in the entire universe.He never
    planned on making more gods besides himself.He
    did not need to make me or save for more power
    and dominion.He already had full dominion with-
    out me…..I was not the literal child of God;
    I was His wayward creation He loved enough to
    die for.God literally adopted me as His son,He
    chose to save me.I was no longer His equal. No
    longer was God a colleague.My salvation was
    changed into a gift that I did not deserve
    instead of payment for righteous acts.I discov-
    ered the glory I longed for as a Mormon belonged
    only to God not to me.My view of God and myself
    was completely turned upside down….”

  17. Mike R says:


    “….My false Mormon beliefs had been setting
    me up for a fall. Jesus warned us,’ For everyone
    who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who
    humbles himself will be exalted.'[Luke 18:14].
    I had exalted myself as an equal to God and
    brought God down to my own level.I did not know
    Jesus or God; I was just pretending to know Him.
    Jesus said there will be many pretenders on
    Judgement Day….Matt.7:22-23.

    I had lived my entire life trying to be good so
    that God would reward me. I never knew that these
    good deeds would prove that I was only serving
    own self-interest and imagined self-glorification
    not God. In the end I would have been just a
    pretender. I praise God today that I am no longer
    a pretender. I am an authentic, spiritually
    redeemed, adopted child of God.”

  18. Andy Watson says:

    Continuing on the earlier post at the top regarding the perverted gospel twist that the Mormons have to the Garden of Eden, I now offer this quote to accompany the other one:

    “The decision of Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit WAS NOT SIN as it’s formally prohibited BUT NOT INHERENTLY WRONG. The Fall was necessary for us to progress toward exaltation. We have to experience mortality to become like our Father in Heaven, and Adam and Eve FULFILLED THEIR MISSION to make this possible. Because the Garden of Eden was a place of innocence, while Adam and Eve lived there they could not change or progress in any way, including having children. EXPRESS YOUR GRATITUDE for Adam and Eve FOR THE CHOICE THEY MADE. ENCOURAGE class members to FOLLOW ADAM AND EVE’S EXAMPLE AND CHOOSE GOOD OVER EVIL.” (Preparing for Exaltation, p. 13-15)

    Can you believe this? Reading this makes me gasp in horror at the perverted twist that we have here. What Adam and Eve did was not a sin? The Bible says it is in Romans 5:12, 14; A sin and a transgression is the same thing in 1 John 3:4; What Adam & Eve did wasn’t wrong? Really? God said don’t do it! Is that not clear enough? Adam & Eve “fulfilled their mission”? Again, as stated in the other quote, this implies that this was pre-arranged by the Mormon god that they deliberately sin and disobey him with his private “head-nod” of approval. This is the same thing I pointed out in Abraham 2:23-25 where Abraham supposedly says that the Mormon lord told him to lie. Get out of here!

    Mormons are to express gratitude and encourage others to follow their example? Are you kidding? Mormons are to follow Adam & Eve’s example of disobedience in sinning against God and knowingly disobeying what God had told them NOT to do? What they did was “good” and not evil? This is the exact opposite account of the biblical text! So this is how the “make a god” program had to be hatched? Yes, the author of it is Satan – the father of lies. This is evil.

  19. falcon says:

    Hay Andy,
    “Anything that works” could be the motto of the SLC LDS. If they can’t torture the Bible to tease what they want out of it, then they just get want they want “revealed” to them. What a religion huh? Just invent something and call it revelation. Use the scriptures as far as you can and declare what you can’t find as part of the lost scriptures conspiracy. Bottom line, individual Mormons merely fill-it-up with their own meaning any way. Did the Mormon god have actual sexual intercourse with the virgin Mary as taught by BY; Adam-god, what about that; Ah, just do with it what you want or declare it the prophet’s opinion.
    The useless prophets that run the SLC LDS are better at building-up their own financial coffers than they are at prophecy. Besides, all of the members receive “revelation”. One’s as good as another; especially if you don’t have to be troubled by fooling around with something as corrupt as the Bible. Right?

  20. Michael P says:

    Andy, don’t you know that we would not have the possibility to be saved now if Adam didn’t eat the darn fruit? Come on, man. Be smart, see because Adam ate, the stage was set for our redeemer to do his magic…

    OK, Sarcasm over.

    What is missing from that argument is the possibility of our lives now in perfection with God, rather than the broken world we live in. I find it amazing that the argument LDS present is even thought about.

    But, it goes back, I think, to Shem’s comment to me to ignore the words and look at the teachings. While I hate to focus on one comment, his openness on it really exposes Mormon thought. Mormon thought first must accept the framework of Smith’s and Young’s beliefs and then apply them to the word of scripture. This is backwards.

    And I love the article Mike R posted, because it seems to clearly articulate the difference in approaches, and also the freedom found in accepting the God of the Bible rather than of Smith.

  21. Andy Watson says:

    Part 1

    Let’s talk about what it means to be joint-heirs with Christ (Rom 8:17). First, let’s get the LDS understanding so it’s clear. Mormons, you want to be joint-heirs with Christ? Listen to your prophet:

    “Now if we want to become heirs, joint-heirs with Jesus Christ, possessing the blessings of the kingdom, there is only one thing required of you and of me, and that is TO KEEP THE WHOLE LAW, NOT A PART OF IT ONLY. Do you think it would be fair, just, proper, for the Lord to say to us: ‘I will give unto you commandments; you may keep them if you will; you may be indifferent about the matter if you will; KEEP SOME, REJECT OTHERS; or, PARTIALLY KEEP SOME;and I will punish you, but then I will make it up to you, and all will be well.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.37)

    Okay, LDS faithful, are you doing this? Are you keeping the whole law – the commandments – all of them including the add-ons given by your Church: the teachings and doctrines of men (Matt 15:9)? What does 1 Nephi 3:7 say? Yeah, that’s right…swallow it down. It’s your law and it ALL can be done – no excuses! Come on…step up and make yourself known. The photographers are waiting to take your picture and post it on the front of the October Ensign in being the first Mormon to claim they have or are doing this now. You aren’t – none of you. You’re doomed in your own system. You’re not obeying Matthew 5:48. Real Christians do!

    How do Mormons propose to “suffer” with Christ in Romans 8:17? To be glorified like him means to suffer with him? Mormons up for a modern-day crucifixion to become a god so they can be a joint-heir? The insanity of this scripture misunderstanding has led some Catholics to engage in corporal mortification in which they inflict physical harm upon themselves in various ways. Members of Opus Dei do this. I’ve watched Filipinos nail themselves to wooden crosses & allow others to whip them in the streets to prove their suffering. Any LDS volunteers?

  22. Andy Watson says:

    Part 2

    What does it mean in Christianity to be a joint-heir with Christ (Rom 8:17)?

    First, it all starts with John 1:12. Only those who RECEIVE Christ BECOME the children of God. For those that have not received Him and become born again (John 3:3) are still the children of their father, the devil (John 8:44). There are children of God and there are children of the devil (1 John 3:10). Mankind is separated from God because of sin as we discussed already in Rom 5:12 because of the SIN of Adam & Eve. We’ve all sinned (Rom 3:23) and none of us are good (Rom 3:10, 12).

    Second, after we have received Christ we are now reconciled to God the Father. This is the atonement. It’s what Christ had to do to make it possible for us to have a restored relationship with the Father (2 Cor 5:18). We are now justified (Rom 5:1), no longer are under condemnation (Rom 8:1), we are sanctified (Heb 10:10) and now declared perfect through Christ (Heb 10:14).

    Third, because of the above, we can now cry “Abba, Father” because we have been ADOPTED (Rom 8:15) into the family of God. Confirmation of this is in Rom 5:16 – the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

    Fourth, how are we joint-heirs? We have an inheritance of all spiritual blessings in this life (Eph 1:3) and all the riches of God’s glorious kingdom in the next life (1 Cor 3:21-23). We inherit by grace the glory which is His by right (John 17:22-24). This is spiritual union kept up by the Holy Ghost/Spirit. We suffer for His sake as well (2 Cor 1:5-7).

    Become a god (LDS view) from Rom 8:15-17? Not a chance (conflicts with an abundance of other CLEAR Scripture!). Being given the gift of eternal life NOW and live with Christ/God for all eternity (John 6:47)? Yes!

  23. Ralph says:


    My aspiration is to be what Heavenly Father wants me to be. If this means that I can inherit His power and create other worlds then yes that is what I want. As far as you comment ” I realize that you probably don’t think a great deal about it…”, you’re right, I don’t. There is a hymn that we sing now and then at church and part of it goes ”Then wake up and do something more, than dream of your mansions above”. It’s good advice for anyone. Yes we need to determine our salvation (as the Bible states), but we also need to focus on the here and now.


    But if Satan lied to Adam and Eve when he told them that they shall be as gods knowing good and evil, why did God confirm this ‘lie’ by saying in v24 that Adam and Eve had become as gods knowing good and evil? If God said it was correct then how can it be a lie? Or are you saying that God lies and condones lies?

    But like I said, we DO NOT get our doctrine from these verses. It says nothing about our doctrine about how we can become gods. It is just talking about how Adam and Eve caused the fall but in the process acquired a god-like characteristic (ie knowing good and evil). So I don’t know why you keep insisting that is what I am saying.


    Shematwater gave a good answer to your question, but since it was addressed to me, I will also give an answer.

    Adam and Eve were in a state of innocence, similar to little children. This is referred to in Gen 2:25 because they “were not ashamed”. If you put a child in a room with a toy in front of them and tell them not to touch the toy, what will they do? Most children will dilly-dally for a while but eventually go for the toy. Are they being disobedient? Yes. Are they purposefully being disobedient? No. It is in their innocent nature to be ‘adventurous’ (for want of a better word). A sin is going against God’s will on purpose. Adam and Eve could not do this in an innocent state – they did not know good or evil and without evil there is no sin.

  24. falcon says:

    Michael P,
    Watch the sarcasm! That’s my signature style. You don’t want to divert our Mormon friends away from me.

    Usual good job. I really appreciate your scholarship and efforts here.

    Let’s face it, the only men that are going to become gods, in Mormon mythology, are the members of the FLDS sect of Mormonism because they are fulfilling the “principle” as delivered to Joseph Smith via his own imagination. The apostate SLC LDS fell away from the sacred principle introduced by Joseph Smith and perfected by Brigham Young.
    What could be termed the “originalists” within Mormonism, don’t even mess with the minigod progression myth, opting to adhere more to the true nature of God as revealed in the sacred scriptures the Bible and handed down by the Christian Church intact as we have it today.
    Until our Mormon friends surrender to God and acknowledge who He is, they’re destined to live in a fantasy world of a false priesthood and a me-as-god delusion.

  25. setfree says:

    Ralph, a lot of messages between this one and back where we were talking, but as a refresher, I had just pointed out that the verses given by LDS HQ that are supposed to be talking about Elohim as opposed to Jehovah say that Jehovah IS Elohim.

    You said “I have read the institute manual about Jehovah (YHWH) and Elohiem and how Jesus is the God of the OT and it makes sense to me. I have no problems with it.”

    I am confused about what you have no problems with? Did the OT manual say why Jehovah is Elohim? I’m not understanding… will you please explain?

    Mike R, I really loved that post as well, and can completely identify. I especially loved “I did not know Jesus or God; I was just pretending to know Him.” Ain’t that the truth of LDS-ism? But you don’t/can’t possibly see it until you’re on the other side..

    Andy and liv4JC, love your explanations about the Adam/Eve and Abraham sin issues. Terrific!

    One last thing… there’s actually a fair-wiki (I think) helper for Mormons who are asked the question, why do Mormons always attack the Bible. The answer is, well, the LDS leadership doesn’t. Hmm. Well, that may or may not be true, but as can be well displayed here on Mormon Coffee, the LDS tradition does. When on trial, attack the Bible! Attack! Attack! It’s not true! It needs retranslation!
    (Doesn’t this fact strike any LDS as odd?)

  26. Andy Watson says:


    God didn’t say that Adam & Eve had become gods. He said, “the MAN has become as one of us TO KNOW GOOD AND EVIL”. If Adam had become as god or a god, then God would not have addressed him as MAN. All God said is that they now know good AND evil. This something that Adam & Eve knew nothing about in its fullest extent before they gave into temptation. They knew OF evil from God’s warning, but had not given into and known the RESULT FROM it until their “eyes were opened” (v. 7). You know I am not saying God condones lying. In Mormonism he apparently does in Abraham 2:23-25.

    If you don’t get the doctrine of exaltation from these verses, then why are we talking about them in this context!? I am fully aware of the other verses you claim in the Bible to support the LDS view. They fall apart very quickly just like this text. Correct: you won’t learn how to become gods in the Bible because it is not taught, rather it is condemned.

    Yes, Adam & Eve acquired a God-like characteristic: they learned of evil after “their eyes were opened”. Having a characteristic like God doesn’t make you God (gods). We are made in His image (Gen 1:26). That consists of many different aspects.

    1. Moral – We’re accountable for our actions
    2. Spiritual – We have immortality; immaterial spirits that do not die
    3. Mental – We have the ability to think; our language; we’re inventive; we have a complexity of emotions; we have intellect with emotions & can reason
    4. Relational – We have interpersonal harmony with each other; we have the right to rule over creation
    5. Physical – We can see, hear & speak (God can do this); we can touch, taste and smell giving us the ability to understand and enjoy God’s creation. Physical movement and demonstration of God-given skills comes about through the use of our body.

    Just because you have vision to look at your monitor, can touch a keyboard and know that the computer can be used for good & evil doesn’t make you God (or as gods).

  27. liv4jc says:

    Ralph. You are correct. Adam and Eve were created innocent. You are wrong. Just because Adam and Eve aquired one of the attributes of God: knowledge of good and evil; it was not a good thing, and it didn’t qualify them to become gods themselves someday by learing to choose right from wrong. They made the wrong choice and we’re all paying for it now (Romans 5:12-14). If learning how to choose right from wrong was a good thing, why did God mercifully ban them from the Garden of Eden so that they would not eat of the Tree of Life and live in their sinful state forever? Was that another trick of God’s to keep them from gaining immortality too easily since his first plan to keep them from becoming godlike failed?

    Also, children are not born innocent. They are sinful, not adRemember Romans 5:12 from above. It applies to children, too. This is one thing you will never hear.
    Father 1: How is Jimmy doing?
    Father 2: Well, he’s alright, but he’s having behavior problems.
    Father 1: Like what? Lying, stealing?
    Father 2: Yeah. Yesterday I put a cupcake on the counter and said, “Jimmy, don’t eat that cupcake.” I walked away. I came back 5 minutes later and it was still there. Then I waited until he was really hungry and tried it again. Same thing. He wouldn’t eat the cupcake.
    Father 1: Well it’s probably just a phase. How old is he, 3? He’ll get over it.
    Father 2: I dunno. The day before he ate a cupcake that was left out. I didn’t tell him he could have one, but I came into the kitchen and it was gone. I looked at him and he had crumbs all over his shirt and chocolate icing all over his face. I asked…and I tried to sound real mean on purpose, “Jimmy, did you eat that cupcake without permission?!” Do you know what the kid said in reply? “Yes, dad, I ate the cupcake, and I’m sorry.” Can you believe that. This kid won’t cry when he doesn’t get his way, he comes when I call him, he goes to bed no problem, he won’t steal or lie. It’s like he’s perfect or something.

  28. liv4jc says:

    Andy. Great explanation on becoming heirs with Christ. It’s amazing that Romans 8:17 is quoted as if it is written in a vaccuum. The seven prior chapters in Paul’s letters to the believers in Rome lays the groundwork for the previous statement in verses 14 and 15, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry out, “Abby, Father.”

    Paul explains in the first 3 chapters (until Romans 3:21) in explicit detail that we are children of wrath, deserving of death and punishment, because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Beginning in 3:21 he begins laying the groundwork of salvation by being justified “freely” by God’s grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. This salvation comes strictly by faith, and not works (Romans 4). Sin is inherited through Adam, but life is given through faith in Christ (Romans 5). Romans 6 speaks of sanctification. No longer being a slave to sin, but to righteousness, and Romans 7 tells us that we are dead to the requirements of the Law, but not of righteousness, for the Law is good to show us the depth of our depravity. Romans 8 begins with the mighty declaration in summary of the previous 7 chapters, “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.”

    Being adopted as sons of God by faith we no longer fear the wrath of God, but are promised an inheritance with Christ.

    Why would anyone ever exchange the truth of God for a self-centered arrogant lie? Romans 1:18, anyone?

  29. Mike R says:


    Thanks for the reply.Based on the authority of
    holy scripture(and in this case,common sense) I
    assure you that God is’nt going to give you
    His Almighty power, that is literally imposs-
    ible.You(we)are creatures, He is the Creator.
    Since you believe that you will ascend to the
    status of Almighty God over your own world one
    day, then your children will I suppose will be
    saying the following about you:
    ” I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the
    ending saith RALPH, which is, and which was,
    and which is to come, the ALMIGHTY.”[Rev.1:8]

    ” Thou art worthy, O RALPH, to receive glory
    and honor and power; for thou hast created all
    things and for thy pleasure they are and were

    As you can see Ralph, this is truely a delusion.
    Please humble yourself before God and abandon
    this false teaching.All the good and noble deeds
    you accomplish each day can not make up for this
    aspiration you desire.
    This is a textbook example of being,”misled”
    [Matt 24:11] by an end-time prophet that Jesus
    warned us about.
    God Bless you Ralph as you seek Him.

  30. Shem,

    You do not even try to explain the other allusions made to our relationship to God: master-servant, husband-bride, etc. Indeed, Mormons may have answers for those but not good ones. You must call those allegorical and the child references literal. Also, read what I wrote.

    “Where does the Bible assert this teaching? I challenge you to show me the verses that do and the pre-apostasy commentaries of the primitive church that support such a view.”

    Where did this idea exist before the 1830’s? I have long been harping the point here that not only new scriptures, but all new ideas accompanied the “restoration” of the gospel. The primitive (pre-apostasy) church did not believe that God the father beget our physical spirit bodies in a pre-existent state. If you add all new ideas to anything it no longer is a mere restoration.

    That adoption is all over the place in the Bible I have never denied. What I challenge is the idea that our literal Father could literally adopt us and for this all to make sense. If God is adopting some of us then he doesn’t others which means sonship is not a default position. This is unlike how normal sons are with their fathers. If a son is born he has sonship. If we are adopted we were either separated from God somehow or we were never his until adoption.

    Also notice I am talking about being adopted to the father not the son. Some of the verse you cited talk about adoption to the father not the son. So lets go through these verses.

    Hebrews 9 There is no problem here at all for traditional Christianity. God is our spiritual father. He disciplines us spiritually (the context is struggling against sin) like our physical fathers did physically. The term “father of our spirits” does not sway me in the slightest. We believe in adoption too, because we were once separated from God. When were ever not a child of God?

  31. Eph 4 – The sharp distinction that you ascribe between “kurios” and “theos” does not exist. One means lord and one means god and the term lord can be used of God. Also, I challenge Christians on this point all the time. I grew up with preachers telling me “all” means “all”. “All” often means a few like – all the people that are here. The letter is a addressed to the church or rather a church (the one in Ephesus), look at verse 7. There is your “all”.

    John 1 So are you saying that those who do not receive him are not sons? If they are being adopted, and this is the adoption, then the answer would have to be “yes”. But your church teaches that we are all god’s children.

    Romans 8 is talking about being adopted unto the father through Christ. Again, this does not harmonize with LDS theology but it does with the rest of Romans. Rom 6:17&18 –

    But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

    And Rom 5:19 – For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

    We (a qualified “we“) were separated from our Creator by sin and now are made sons by the blood of The Son.

    2 Cor 6 is merely a promise that was given to Israel that now applies to the church. The context is association with non-believers. One an ox and one a donkey (Deut 22:10). This actually fits our theology much better. Christians are a completely different animal than non-believers – one ox, one donkey. One sheep, one goat.

    Eph 1 asserts that we are adopted to the father “through Jesus Christ”. And those that were not predestined by God are not adopted. Again this fits better with my theology than it does yours.

  32. Rev 21 again adoption is no prob for me. But look at verse 8. Do you really think that large swath of humanity is headed to the lake of fire? Again this fits my theology better than yours.

    Gal 3 Look at what verse 26 says – For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Again adopted unto God through Jesus.

    Matt 3 says nothing about adoption. I think you are reading into this something you want to see.

    I Cor 4 In this verse Paul is the father! This gives further evidence that the use of the father/child analogy is just that – an analogy.

    Ps 82 is frequently debated with Mormons. First, it could legitimately be referring to the judges of Israel. Grammatically, this is a legit interpretation. It also could be discussing “the gods” but look what happens to them. They “die like mere men”. I don’t think that proves your point.

    Acts 17 The term used is υπαρχοντες and it means “children” elsewhere in the Bible. First, the NASB renders the term children here where the KJV is in agreement with other translations by using “offspring”. However, the same word appears in Lk 11:13 and there the KJV uses the term “children“. If the word “son” does not need to be literal, then it is not a stretch to suggest that “children” not be either.

    Jb 38 Is Satan your gang leader? I ask because the “sons of God” is a rare occurrence in the Hebrew (it only occurs in Job and Gen 6:2) and it can mean the gods or angels. Here Satan is numbered among them (Jb 6:1). Also this only makes sense if righteous Job was not one of the “sons of God”. He was not there when God created the universe and the angels shouted for joy.

    Isa 45 Yes God formed us. And this proves an exclusively Mormon point that we don’t believe in?

    I think you demonstrated for us what a theology that comes from the top down, verses from the bottom up, looks like. You must press upon these verses something they don’t say.

  33. LARRY CLARK says:

    The whole point of Genesis 3 is Satan questioning God’s word: “Yea hath God said,” and the next line is a misquote “Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” However, Gen 2: 16-17 “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Man has lived an died ever since.

    Satan was a liar from the beginning and there is no truth in him. He questions God’s word, misquotes God’s word, and deceives the whole world. When Jesus was tempted by the devil Math 4: 4-10, Satan misquotes Psalms 91 11-12. Jesus answers Satan and every time, he quotes the word of God – The word of God Stands forever, Isaiah 40: 8.

    Our LDS friends quite literally take the word of Satan over the word of God and think it’s a good thing – this is the crux of the LDS faith.

    Questioning God’s word comes early in the Bible and The Book of Mormon does the same thing, everyone that posts here can probably quote it 1 Nephi 13: 26-29.

    Don’t get swept up in moon men or polygamy, etc. It is the consistent attack of God’s word – The same word Jesus quoted during his whole time on earth.

    I beg our Mormon posters to please ponder what Satan did in the Garden and rather praying about the truth of the Book of Mormon, pray about the truth of God’s word and realize there is nothing satan touches or says that is good.

  34. falcon says:

    There is something that can be stated with all certainty and that is that there is not one Mormon who posts here that will become a god; either according to the Bible or within the framework of the Mormon myth machine.
    Joseph Smith, the creator of the Mormon myth, stated that in order to get to the highest level of the Celestial kingdom, a man must practice the sacred principle of polygamy. The SLC LDS denomination of Mormonism “suspended” the practice of polygamy, but it’s still “on the books”. In fact, after Willford Woodruff suspended the practice, Mormons continued to practice it at the highest levels of leadership within the SLC LDS. The big boys knew something. Even today, the members of this Mormon denomination can have more wives “sealed” to them after the current wife dies.
    Joseph Smith stands at the gates of the Celestial kingdom. Will he let nonpolygamists, who have violated his sacred principle, enter in and become gods? Of course not.
    How do we know all of this? Common sense tells us that if members of a religion violate the most sacred principle of a religion based on societal pressure, they are indeed apostates. Common sense also tells us that there is no way an individual man and an individual woman can procreate enough spirit children to populate their own planets. That man needs a lot of women. Common sense!
    Bottom line, the whole deal is a boondoggle.

  35. Andy,

    Thanks for your verses on adoption. I think it was Ralph who first brought the subject up, and I deferred to a later date. Now we’ve got onto the topic, I’m short of time.

    One problem I have with addressing the “son-ship” theme too literally (as the LDS do), is that it beggars the rich, metaphorical language of the Bible.

    In Biblical times, there was a distinct and important difference between being a servant and being a son. Servants and sons would live in the same house. The obvious difference was that the servants did not “own” anything, but also the servant would never know the intimacy between Father and Son; the Father would communicate to the servants by command, but with the son through an intimate relationship. Further, the son is the person in whom the Father invests himself.

    Note the appeal of the Roman Centurion to Jesus in Matt 8:9. Its the appeal of a servant to a boss, yet Jesus treats him like a son.

    Consider the appeal of the prodigal son in Luke 15:9. If, as LDS assert, being a “son” relates to our physical birth, how could this “son” become a “servant” through some kind of un-adoption?

    Some of the language of the Bible, I believe, applies this relationship to the Jews. The NT, in particular, appeals to these “servants” of God to take up their true calling and become “sons”. In other words, they had obeyed the commands of God, but they had yet to come into the intimate relationship between Father and Son.

    You rightly point us in the direction of the Son, in whom we can become sons. Consider 1 John 3:1 – it is the love of God (in Christ) that has brought this about. In this context, the idea that being a “son of God” relates to our pre-existent spirit birth cheapens the love of God. It robs the love God has for us of its value, denying what it cost God to acquire His people from a world that did not know Him (see Matt 13:44-46, p.s. the parables are about what God does to acquire His people, not what we do to acquire God).

  36. Oops,

    The reference to the prodigal son should have been Luke 15:19.

  37. Rick B says:

    Just like when we were talking about being Co-heirs, I used a police dog. Now the same applies with Adoption. People can and do Adopt Dogs and cats from the shelter, and people even go so far as to say, these are my kids or my family.

    Are dogs and cats human? will they ever be? No they will not, So even if we are co-heirs or when we are adopted will will never be on the same level as God.

  38. jackg says:

    And the Mormon philosophy continues to defy all reasoning. Shem and Ralph, I’m not the guy who said, ““…in the Book of Mormon…the fall of Adam has not been called a sin. It wasn’t a sin…What did Adam do? THE VERY THING THE LORD WANTED HIM TO DO” The problem with non-Christian groups is their attempts to redefine the word “sin” to suit their fancies. I’m sorry, but disobedience falls in the category of sin. Adam and Eve were immediately separated from God, hence His call: “Where are you?” That’s the result of sin–separation from God. So, no matter how you try to spin it, and no matter to what lengths you try to take it, and no matter how smug a guy like HankSaint portrays himself–you guys are following a path that leads to eternal separation from God. I guess if that’s what you want, you can have it. It’s your choice of your own volition. The Truth is being preached to you, and you have been so habituated to the lies of JS and Mormonism that you don’t even know the water is boiling. So, go ahead and continue back-slapping and high-fiving each other for the perfection in regurgitation you each display.


  39. Rick B says:

    So If God wanted Adam and Eve to “Fall Up” then I guess either God is really Stupid because He did not know about all the death and killing that would come as a result, Or as Jason likes to say, My God is an evil Hitler type.

    I guess if God really wanted Adam and Eve to fall, then it is your god that is evil, since after the fall God killed an animal to cover their sin, then as a result women are in pain from birth and men and women all over the world suffer from Death, murder, and every possible evil.

    all this was a result of the fall, so either it was not Gods plan for all of this to happen, or it was. Which is it? Rick b

  40. liv4jc says:

    jackg, I want to add a word of warning to HankSaint, Ralph, and other LDS posters. I base this in Mattew 11:20-24

    “Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.”

    The people who lived in Charazin and Bethsaida observed Jesus’ miracles and heard him give the good news of the Kingdom of God first hand, yet they rejected it, and Christ. Matthew 11:25-27 tells us why, but this does not relieve man of the responsibility to respond to the truth when it is heard. Like those of Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum, Nazareth, etc. those LDS who hear scripture explained and the gospel preached will be held more accountable in the day of judgement than those who are ignorant. The scriptures are complete and today with the advent of information technology men have no excuse for not believing the Word of God.

    Woe unto you who have heard the gospel and reject it. Do you not love your life? If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell (Matthew 5:29).

    Ample proof has been given, yet the gospel has been rejected.

  41. shematwater says:


    you are still coming from the doctrine of the Trinity. There is a difference between spirit and spiritual. Spirit is a state of being, but spiritual is a choice of life.

    The Father is the Father of Spirits, but the son is the spiritual Father of the righteous (or the chosen Father).
    What I have outlined fits perfectly when you realize that the Father and the Son are two very distinct individual beings, so that one is the literal Father while one is the adopted Father. The only reason you say your belief makes more sense is because you claim the Father is the one doing the adopting, which I never said, nor do I believe.

    As to the Father being the literal Father I gave the references that seem verty obvious to me, and the reasons that they seem obvious to me. This is what you asked.
    As to having pre-apostacy commentary, I can’t give it because I am not a scholar of those times. However, the words of the prophets and apostles should be enough. If you require the words of unispired men I can do nothing for you.

    As to the whole Greek words used and why, I will say only one thing. While the Bible as we have it is not completely correct, and has many errors in it, it is still the result of devine inspiration (as far as men were willing to be led) and is in the condition needed to lead Joseph Smith to seek guidance and receive much of the truth we have. I really don’t care what the greek said, because the KJV is what God intended the English speaking races to have, and all the truth contained in the Bible can be found in that version without the aid of the Greek or Hebrew, or any other language. All one needs is the spirit of prophecy, and to rely on anything else will always give you false doctrine.

  42. shematwater says:


    We do not get rid of the Bible because it is the greatest of the standard works. Though errors have crept into the text, it is still the first book of scripture inspired of God, and it was prepared by God to lead Joseph Smith into the restoration.
    The true purpose of the Book of Mormon is to prove the Bible, and all other scriptures are but companions to it. It contains some of the greatest passages, and most profound truth, and no book compared to it. However, since there are errors, when such is found we are blessed with additional inspired scripture to clear the confusion such create.

    As to Pre-existance, there are several verses that speak to this fact. I know that you will always dismiss everything I say with the claim that I am simply putting in LDS doctrine, but if that were true would I not try and put all LDS doctrine into it, which I have not done.

  43. Shem,

    Wow. You have admitted to a lot. You don’t care about the original languages or that your church was the primitive (and thus true) church. If “those men” as you put it were ordained and it was pre-apostasy times then guess what . . . They would be prophets and apostles – so their words do matter. I suspect this is not of a concern for you because you cannot demonstrate that a total apostasy took place.

    “What I have outlined fits perfectly when you realize that the Father and the Son are two very distinct individual beings, so that one is the literal Father while one is the adopted Father.”

    It may “fit” in your mind but it is not something one gets from the text and looks a whole like something one impresses upon it.

    Do tell, what parts of the Bible are in error?

  44. Enki says:

    There is some evidence that the trinity had pagan origins.

    “The Rabbi ‘s deep voice echoes through the dusk, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord’.{# De 6:4} What a far cry that is from Judaism’s offspring, Christianity, and its belief in the Trinity. While the majority of the Christian world considers the concept of the Trinity vital to Christianity, many historians and Bible scholars agree that the Trinity of Christianity owes more to Greek philosophy and pagan polytheism than to the monotheism of the Jew and the Jewish Jesus.”

    The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine
    by Cher-El L. Hagensick Origin of the Trinity.htm

    There is also a Hindu trinity, Brahmā,Vishnu and Śiva. These formed the trimurti. However, according to wikipedia, this wasn’t a universal concept in hinduism.

    “These three deities have been called “the Hindu triad” [3] or the “Great Trinity”. They are often looked at as the creator, preserver and destroyer respectively.”

    “Early western students of Hinduism were impressed by the parallel between the Hindu trinity and that of Christianity. In fact the parallel is not very close, and the Hindu trinity, unlike the Holy Trinity of Christianity, never really “caught on”. All Hindu trinitarianism tended to favor one god of the three; thus, from the context it is clear that Kālidāsa’s hymn to the Trimūrti is really addressed to Brahmā, here looked on as the high god. The Trimūrti was in fact an artificial growth, and had little real influence.[13]”

    “The concept of trimurthi is also present in the Maitri Upanishad, where the three gods are explained as three of his supreme forms[14]”

  45. Rick B says:

    Shem said

    The true purpose of the Book of Mormon is to prove the Bible, and all other scriptures are but companions to it. It contains some of the greatest passages, and most profound truth, and no book compared to it. However, since there are errors, when such is found we are blessed with additional inspired scripture to clear the confusion such create.

    Your kidding right? On my blog I posted the Bruce challenge 4-5 times and mentioned it here 2-3 times. To this day not ONE LDS has ever answered it. If what you said was true then you should have no problem answering that challenge.

    then just recently here on this blog I asked LDS a question that (surprise, surprise) it went unanswered. I asked, If in the BoM you remove all the “AND IT CAME TO PASS” sayings, then remove all the word for word copies from the bible, and the stupid stories that make no sense and have no bearing on salvation, like the guy with a bow of steel that broke, or the barge with holes in the top and bottom, that has not bearing on salvation.

    So according to what you said in the quote, after you remove what I said, what does the BoM teach me that the bible does not? Rick b

  46. liv4jc says:

    shematwater, if you want to have greater insight into the transmission of the biblical text I suggest a very reasonably priced (about $30) book called “New Testament Text and Translation Commentary” by Philip W. Comfort. It is brand new so it contains the most up to date textual variants from the most recent manuscript discoveries.

    By using this reference book you will discover that the KJV of the Bible is not what you claim, “the version God intended English speaking people to have.” Although a good Bible, it was compiled from a small number (I think 3 if memory serves me) of manuscripts. Much better and more complete manuscript evidence has revealed it contains portions that were not in the original writings, such as the woman caught in adultery and the longer ending to the book of Mark, along with other less obvious variant readings.

    The greatest thing you will learn, however is how accurate and faithful the Bible we have today is to the early manuscripts. There is a lot you can learn when you branch out and stop looking at the world through LDS glasses.

  47. shematwater says:


    I do care that the LDS church is the true church, and the same religion praticed by the Early apostles. I just don’t really care about evidence outside the scriptures or the direct revelation from God to me. It is the same church, but no amount of human records can prove it as such, and thus to demand such evidence is rediculous. In fact, to demand such evidence for anything concerning God is rediculous. We should not turn to men, but to God, for the answers. This is what I do.
    All the records you speak of as Pre-Apostacy really don’t mean much. The apostacy had started in the days of the Early Apostles, and so the only records pre-Apostacy are the those written during the life of Christ. As for other members having the spirit of prophecy, I do not deny they did, but I do not think you can put a date on things and say all those written before this time are true and all those written after are not. This is why I do not use such records.

    As to errors: James says “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” (1:13) But we read in Genesis 22: 1 that God tempted Abraham.

    It is also written that no man hath seen God (1 John 4: 12), but Jacob saw God face to face (Genesis 32: 30) as did Moses (Exodus 33: 11).

    Simple error that are plainly in the text. There are others not so plain, but if you con’t see these you will never see the others.

  48. shematwater says:


    I have not read all the posts of this thread, so I missed your questions.
    If the Bruce challenge is the one to show what doctrine the Book of Mormon clarifies then it is a challenge that cannot be fulfilled, nor can it truly be made honestly. Please tell me if this is the challenge, or if you had a different one in mind.
    As to this challenge, the Book of Mormon does a great job at Clarifying. However, if we already agree on the doctrine you can always says the Bible teaches it and so there is no clarification. If we do not agree on the doctrine you will simply say that it is false, thus not in the Bible, and thus not a clarification, but an addition. Either way it is set up as a trap for the LDS.

    As to removing this list of things from the Book of Mormon, let us consider for a moment. I accept the removal of the “and it came to pass” as well as those places that quote the Bible (only if it is a word for word quote). However the stories you want to remove have a great deal to teach us concerning our salvation. There is very little that does not concern our salvation in the Book of Mormon.
    For instance, the broken Bow story teaches the Patriarchal line, and the hierarchy of the Priesthood, for Lehi was the priesthood leader of the group, and it was to him that Nephi went to inquire of the Lord (even though he murmured). The ships teach us how God deal with men, for the Brother of Jared was told only what he could not figure out for himself, but was commanded to find his own solution to what he could, just as we are.
    The Book of Mormon makes a distinction between faith and Knowledge that is not explicit in the Bible. It also teaches the true purpose of the Fall of Adam. It gives more prophecies concerning the Last Days that are more personal as they deal with the America’s directly. All this is found in the Book of Mormon, and more.

  49. shematwater says:


    Personally, as I said, I really am not concerned with the learning of men when it comes to the things of God. God has revealed his truth to men in all ages. He has done it personally, not relying on earthly scholars to descover what past generations taught and wrote. He has called prophets, given them the keys and gifts to reveal and teach his will concerning all ages of the world.
    You can bring a thousand earthly scholars that all agree as to what the “original text” said. But if the Prophet of God declares they are wrong I will believe the servant of God over the thousand servants of men.

  50. Rick B says:

    Shem, You could not be more wrong, but I know we will not agree.

    First off, Bows are not and will not be made out of steel, then if you take swords which are thinner and used for battle, they sometimes break in the heat of battle, but from much abuse. A steel bow made of “Fine” steel as it is pointed out would be thicker in the middle and even ends and be closer to a bar than flat like a sword. They guy cannot be so stupid as to beat his bow and therefore break it.

    Try breaking a bar of steel, just not going to happen, so no that is not only stupid, but does not add to my knowledge of salvation.

    The Boat story, God made Noahs ark, why would God seem so stupid as to build a boat with two holes that need plugs and say in the story, if you pull a plug and water comes in the boat, put the plug back into it. If water is coming in, then that means they are under water and being tossed upside down and all around. Not good for survival.

    The Bible has roughly 1,800 prophecy’s, Thats not enough? we need more? And JS prophecy’s failed big time.

    You said

    If the Bruce challenge is the one to show what doctrine the Book of Mormon clarifies then it is a challenge that cannot be fulfilled,

    Whats really sad about this is, Bruce himself said it could be done, so who’s correct? You both cannot be.

    Then you said

    However, if we already agree on the doctrine you can always says the Bible teaches it and so there is no clarification.

    Problem is, we do not agree. But even though we do not agree, the problem is, you really cannot clarify things in the Bible from the BoM. And the other problem is, you say, well you will not agree with my answers so I wont bother providing them.

    The Problems I have with LDS doing that is this, The Bible and the BoM both say, Search the scriptures to know if these things are true. I search and cannot find these things. LDS claim they have the truth, know the answers but then do not want to,

Leave a Reply