Dear Sharon,
Some critics say that Mormons believe that when they become gods they will have glory equal with Father. But that is simply a lie. I know that our Father will be always our GOD and we will worship Him for whole eternity, becoming gods is not to rob Father’s glory, but to give Him more glory. If my children [have] success in their life, it will not rob anything from me it will only give me more honor. God wants us to be like Him, He wants us to have what He has, like every good parent wishes to his children. If my kids become like me or even better I still will be their mother and they still will honor and respect me, if they are good children, of course. I am not dreaming that one day when I become god I will take away something from MY Father in heaven. That is what Lucifer wanted, he wanted glory of the Father and he wanted everybody to worship him. That is why he is devil now, he did not keep his first estate…
I believe that Jesus is creating many more worlds, and he will do it for eternity, because it will be always infinity more space beyond each new world he will create. The more worlds he creates the more glory it brings to his Father. I believe that if I overcome like Jesus overcame I will inherit what he inherited and as joint heir with him will be given this opportunity to create more worlds like he does, and by doing it I will glorify my Father in heaven. The same like earthly children when they prosper in their lives they bring more honor to their earthly parents and not taking away from them something. And when their grandchildren follow their parents those already grandparents are even more proud of their children. And people say what a wonderful parents they are, they have not only great children but even great grandchildren.
Hi Anna,
…I read all the same Bible passages as you, but I understand them quite differently (as I have demonstrated in past emails). I would just like to comment that, as I understand things, “inheriting” all that God has is not the same as becoming a God like Him. What He has and what He is are two different things altogether. A silly analogy is this: I can prepare a will and leave all that I have to my new puppy; this makes him my heir. When I die he will inherit everything I have — but he will not inherit what I am. That is, he will not become human — he will remain a dog.
Anyway, you wrote:
And again, I really would like to point out, that I want to do it NOT to convince you but ONLY to show what it really means from the point of view of latter-day saints and NOT what critics say it means.
In that spirit, I wonder if you can help me understand this a bit better. Here is one place I have a lot of trouble with this whole idea of “many Gods but one for us.” You have said many times (for emphasis, I think) that though you believe there are many true Gods, you only worship one. You say that you (and others) becoming a God will not take anything away from Heavenly Father, but it will instead increase His glory.
Here’s what I’m struggling to understand. Let’s back up a world/generation. According to Mormonism, at one time Heavenly Father was a human being on another planet. Of all the true Gods in existence, he worshiped only his Heavenly Father (and perhaps his Savior). When he (our God) achieved exaltation, he became a God and created and peopled another world (separate from the one he’d lived on in mortality). But the people of this other world (us) have nothing whatsoever to do with Heavenly Father’s Father — our Heavenly Grandfather, if you will. Our Heavenly Father says he is the only God that matters to us; we are to have nothing to do with our Heavenly Grandfather (and other heavenly ancestors). Heavenly Father is so intent on keeping his children (us) from his own Father, he pretends (says) he doesn’t even know his Heavenly Father exists. [See Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah 44:8]
(From a human standpoint, there is not much we could do that would dishonor our grandfathers more than to totally ignore them and pretend they don’t exist — or think they don’t matter.)
So as the cycle continues, for you, when you become exalted, your husband will tell your children that he is the only God for them. As for your Heavenly Father, the God you worship, your children will not know or acknowledge him. When they are around you, you will pretend that your Heavenly Father doesn’t even exist.
I honestly cannot understand how this seems good to you and others of your faith… For me, I could never comfortably deny my God; I could never comfortably instruct my children to love and worship me and ignore my God. He is everything to me and I want nothing more than for others to know Him and His love, too. The day that my children gave their hearts to Him (though this put me in second place) was one of the best days of my life — and it continues to bring me great joy and comfort…
Dear Sharon,
[Some]thing that you can not accept and makes no sense for you is why God doesn’t want to teach us about His God or as we can call Him our grandfather God. Sharon, you probably know that Mormons believe that we have our Heavenly Mother. And still Father did not reveal to us anything about her or revealed very little. Even through the Bible I personally see that God does not reveal to us MANY MANY other things. Why? There are many reasons that God only knows…why God does not reveal to us about other worlds and His Gods ancestors, let’s call them this way, it is because God reveals to us ONLY things that IMPORTANT for our SALVATION!!! What is not important for our salvation can wait for a time when ALL things will be revealed to us.
Hello Anna,
Thank you for speaking to my concerns about the continuing cycle of Gods and the denial of their existence by our Heavenly Father. I appreciate your effort to explain, but you really didn’t help me understand. You talked about how God doesn’t reveal everything to us, and this for His good purposes. I agree with you. But that wasn’t my question. I did not ask why God doesn’t tell us about His God (and our Heavenly Grandfather), but how our Heavenly Grandfather is honored and glorified when His own son (Heavenly Father) denies His very existence. As I wrote,
So as the cycle continues, for you, when you become exalted, your husband will tell your children that he is the only God for them. As for your Heavenly Father, the God you worship, your children will not know or acknowledge him. When they are around you, you will pretend that your Heavenly Father doesn’t even exist.
Anna, this is a big problem for me. I cannot reconcile this with other things you have told me (e.g., that this system brings glory and honor to Heavenly Father). And I certainly cannot reconcile it with the teachings of the Bible as I understand them…
Sharon
I can’t help wondering how people can even think along those lines, whatever happened to common sense not to say logic. How can LDS Mormons fit the concept of ” forever families” into this convoluted way of thinking, they contradict themselves. The leaders put tremendous pressure on members if they don’t follow LDS teachings & if they don’t believe any of the baloney & decide to leave they are guilted? into staying so they may be part of a family that logically can’t exist. The whole idea of becoming a god means that the family has to be broken up. The mindset of the LDS never ceases to amaze me.
I think Sharon makes a great point when she says how from the Mormon perspective, “our Heavenly Grandfather is honored and glorified when His own son (Heavenly Father) denies His very existence..”
I want to make an observation that I think is related to this topic, dealing with the differences between worship and reverence between the two faiths (Mormonism and mainstream Christianity). If you look up worship and reverence in the dictionary, they almost seem like the same word.
This is my opinion but when I think about reverence I am thinking about a deep respect and appreciation. One example would be my feelings and actions for a military service member. Or feelings I have towards my parents and grandparents. I do not worship any of these people. Worship is set apart for the divine. When I think about worship it is this love, respect, and appreciation too but it goes to a new height. It is the acknowledgment that there is something divine, greater than myself and that I am nothing without it. I owe my entire being, life, my everything to this thing or person.
Now to look at the idea of reverence and worship from the Christian and Mormon perspective. In Christianity, God is the greatest there ever was and ever will be. He is the beginning and the end, infinite and eternal, all powerful, all knowing… We are the creation. We are made with his image within us but we will never be completely what He is because we have beginning. We are not outside of everything as God is. We are limited. So we can see why worship would be a good word to describe our relationship to God. We worship Him and plan to continue this attitude of worship forever. We believe we will be made to be greater than we are now, we will perfectly be united with God and perfectly exhibit His image that is within us, but we will never be completely like him. Worship will always apply.
Now these are my thoughts on the Mormon perspective. Heavenly Father is divine, as is Christ, and the Holy Spirit. They are all on a different level then us. Mormons owe their ability to progress from intelligences, that have eternally existed, to be able to further progress and to reach their full potential of godhood. Worship would apply to this situation as well. But everything changes when Mormons reach exaltation, divinity, and becoming deity as well. This is why… Once some of us become divine and reach godhood, they reach the same level as God. There is not much to differentiate them except that one has a bit more experience than the other. But when considering the eternities, this experience is going to look more and more minute in the grand scheme of things. So now worship has turned into reverence. My parents and I are both adults. I revere them for the extra life experience and for the things they did for me that I couldn’t do as a child, but I do NOT worship them. I don’t see the difference between this and once men become gods. Would my attitude of if I saw the Savior and wanting to prostate myself on the ground and kiss his feet change to a simple handshake and hug? One man reaches godhood will it be more like, “Thank you for you service,” as we would say to the service men and women today?
To Christians the idea of worshiping God forever is a big deal. Many do not like to think that it would be downgraded to reverence.
Old Man.
My favorite line.
The more convoluted and bizarre an idea, the more cultists love it!
There is something in the make-up of some people that (they) are particularly attracted to things that are a couple of bubbles off of plumb. It’s all the better if it goes against orthodoxy.
Because they “understand” it, and most others don’t, they surmise, that puts them in the spiritually gifted and talented group. However it’s all a case of the Emperor’s New Clothes. These folks are stark naked and they think they are well dressed.
You know we don’t even have to debate this nonsense with them. We just need to get the word out on Mormonism, its gods and the evolution of Mormon belief and the history of the prophets and the religion. People can figure it out without even having to delve that far into it.
As for Mormons themselves? They are leaving in droves anyway. Some of that has to do with Mormons finding out things that they didn’t know and which are a deal breaker for them. Others leave because the religion and its practices are a drag and they want nothing to do with it. They just want to be free from the encumbrance that a legalistic religion imposes.
Who needs it when you can have Jesus and salvation free! Isn’t that right? God offers us the Gift of Salvation by grace through faith. That having come to Him we then conform to His expectations not out of compulsion but out of love for Him and gratitude for what He has done for us through Christ Jesus Our Lord.
Heavenly Mother Goddesses , and now a heavenly Grandparent as a God ? I guess these days we
should’nt be surprised by prophets claiming to be personally supervised by Jesus to provide
this kind of “revealed knowledge ” , after all , we have been pre warned by Jesus to be on the
look out for such men — Mark 13:22-23 .
Falcon
I don’t want to drift too far from the topic but just a quick response to what you said. (It makes a pleasant change from confronting LDS)
“You know we don’t even have to debate this nonsense with them”
I generally try to avoid theological debate, it’s my opinion that the best way to confront the LDS is with it’s own history & quotes from past leaders & to apply simple logic to what they have said. Replies, if they come at all, rarely make any sense, that’s the problem with weird beliefs hatched in the darkness of deception, they can’t long survive when exposed to the light of Gods word.
“Who needs it when you can have Jesus and salvation free! Isn’t that right?”
Indeed it is & one of the most obscene teachings ever devised by the LDS is that members have to pay Joseph Smith Inc. for their salvation. Forget paying bills, don’t pay the rent, and before you eat make sure you have paid your membership fees.
“not out of compulsion” is an alien concept to Mormons, & because of that they believe that Christians have no rules. Yet, truth to tell our “rules”, although I hesitate to use that word in a Christian context, are far more binding because the Spirit writes them on our hearts. In Christ we have become new creations.
Mormonism is a “make it up as you go along” sort of enterprise.
Smith wanted to start his very own religion and was indeed a very creative guy. I don’t know if he would have been as successful if he had merely started another denomination of Christianity.
This guy liked ideas and he was a great borrower. In addition to this he had a very fruitful imagination. There were/are people who are captivated by his tales.
Smith appears to have been at his most inventive when he came up with his new god for his new religion. Most tellers of religious tales stop with their visions, visitations and revelations but not Smith. He needed a new god and an entire new deity concept.
So he invents the notion of millions and billions of gods, men morphing into gods, a heaven where these men to gods can have any number of goddess wives where they can live a harem lifestyle populating their very own worlds with the spirit children they produce (who obtain human bodies).
I say just make all of this information available to the public at large.
Sharon
As this is way off topic I’ll leave you to decide if it’s acceptable, however, I do think that people should read this, the latest statement from the LDS leadership.
From the LDS newsroom dated 13 March 2013
“First Presidency Offers “Warmest Wishes” to Newly-Elected Pope Francis”
“The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued the following statement Wednesday:
On behalf of the leadership and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we extend our warmest wishes to His Holiness Pope Francis and pray he will feel the peace of the Lord as he serves as pontiff of the Catholic Church.
We have been honored and pleased as our two faiths have worked together on issues of faith, morality and service to the poor and needy. We value the relationships that have been formed in these joint efforts and are grateful for the good that has been accomplished.
We look forward to pursuing together, as the Apostle Paul wrote, all things that are true, honest, just, pure, lovely and of good report (see Philippians 4:8).”
I’m not usually lost for words but this is one of those times.
Sharon
Our Father has never once denied the existence of his Father. I understand you think he has, given a certain interpretation of the words of Isaiah, but this interpretation is wrong. It is based on a misunderstanding of the context of these verses.
First, one must understand that the Bible is a record of this Earth. It does not deal with anything not pertaining to this planet. So, the context of Isaiah 43: 10 is the context of this planet and our existence. In that context that is not other God, or not other being who holds supreme authority over this planet and this exist. This does not deny the existence of other beings living in the divine state. It only declares that none of them hold authority over us.
Now, in Isaiah 44: 8 it declares that is no God beside our God. Now, you interpret the word ‘beside’ as being synonymous with ‘besides.’ While that is a possible meaning, it is not the most common. It is more commonly used to mean “by or at the side of; compared with; apart from; not connected with” (see dictionary.com). So, there is no God that can be compared with our God, for none sit near Him in authority, and none exist which are not connected to Him, as He is the Head of the Gods.
Neither of these verses deny the exist of other gods, but rather seek to keep all things in their proper perspective. Actually, the existence of a Heavenly Grandfather can be seen in Revelation 1: 6, as John writes “hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father.” Thus John tells us that our Father had a Father.
Sharon,
Interesting post, but there are a number a places where I see you expressed ideas that aren’t true.
First, I would like to comment on your statement..
.
In a materialistic world you may be correct, but this isn’t about the material world.. it’s about the spiritual world. Inheriting all that God has in a spiritual sense is quite a different kettle of fish. And it is written,
” Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him..” 1 John 3:2
Furthermore your analogy of the leaving an inheritance to a puppy presupposes something that isn’t true with regard to God and us.. With your puppy analogy, you die.. God doesn’t die.. God is still our God forever and ever. Yet even if we will be like Him, there is one attribute regarding the “What” we will never be.. We will never be our God, we will never supersede or supplant our Heavenly Father.
Where does this come from? Not withstanding that much of this discussion is regarding speculative theology and is not explicitly revealed. Nowhere I know in LDS beliefs does it suggest this at all and therefore I would agree that I too could not understand how this would seem good..
This idea that God is pretending or concealing is something it appears you imagined or was added by your fellow critics. The comment that is most errant is the ” When they are around you, you will pretend that your Heavenly Father doesn’t even exist”..
In the spirit that this is an honest mistake, let me explain.. The apparent concealment of identities beyond our Heavenly Father is only for this mortal probation, NOT when we are with him. There is no ‘pretending’ going on at all. This mortality carries a number of aspects that will not be true in the hereafter when we are with him. Here we live by faith.. Faith that our Heavenly Father is even real.. here we have limited understanding and capacities. Here in this life it’s not always very apparent that God even exists.. Otherwise it would be a simple thing to believe in him.. But he doesn’t show up for regular meetings at the UN Assembly.. Consider also, that Satan is still here too.. Tempting us? Why? Why does the omnipotent God allow Satan to persist at all? In the hereafter, Satan will be bound and no longer an influence. In a simplistic analogy, we are like children that have been sent away to school. This mortal life is but a blink in eternal terms.. There is no reason to believe that when we reunite with God that we won’t have full knowledge and awareness of the identities of other members of the spiritual family.
Perhaps one other difficulty you might have in understanding the LDS position is how you look at the Biblical text.. You cite the typical deuter- Isaiah passages, and in the typical fashion you take them out of their historical context of the realities in 7th century BCE. These have often been used as proof texts by Strict monotheists but they aren’t the kind of proof text you want them to be when they are read according to the historical context of when they were written..
It seems to me perhaps an additional stumbling block is the concept that if it’s not in the Biblical text, then God didn’t reveal it.. so he must be pretending. The fact that we are discussing this at all would mean that some information on the topic exists, so there is no pretending going on. The Bible is far from the final world from God, and the canon of that Bible wasn’t compiled by God, but by errant men who made choices based upon what was politically correct in the 4th century..
Old MAN
What is so horrible about that statement?
<“hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father.”
This is referring to Christ and Heavenly Father. Not a Heavenly Grandfather.
Shem said
“What is so horrible about that statement?”
Nothing would be horrible about that statement if it wasn’t completely false.
When did the LDS Corporation get engaged to the Catholic Church? It’s purely & simply an exercise in Public Relations.
Old Man,
I think there was a controversy involving that late great Mormon theologian and articulator of LDS doctrine Bruce McConkie and what he had to say about the Catholic Church.
“In the book “Mormon Doctrine” a Mormon Apostle’s explained common LDS doctrine concerning the Catholic Church::
“It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this ‘church which is the most abominable above all other churches’ in vision. He ‘saw the devil that he was the foundation of it’ and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this satanic organization. (1 Nephi 13:1-10)”
– Mormon Doctrine, p. 130 (1958)
AND
“Harlots. See Church of the Devil, Sex Immorality.
Literally a harlot is a prostitute; figuratively it is any apostate church. Nephi, speaking of harlots in the literal sense and while giving a prophetic description of the Catholic Church, recorded that he ‘saw the devil that he was the foundation of it.’ … Then speaking of harlots in the figurative sense, he designated the Catholic Church as ‘the mother of harlots’ (1 Nephi 13:34; 14:15-17), a title which means that the protestant churches, the harlot daughters which broke off from the great and abominable church, would themselves be apostate churches.”
– Mormon Doctrine, pp. 314-315 (1958)
“The church Apostle (Bruce R. McConkie) took some heat for these paragraphs and under pressure from those concerned about public relations to tone down the rhetoric for the Second Edition of “Mormon Doctrine.”
Ah yes, for the good old days of those old time in-your-face Mormon leaders who didn’t have to pretend that the LDS church was something that it isn’t.
Falcon,
Its clear to me critics such as yourself delight in citing select quotes of opinions of our leaders as if those opinions represent the Official position of the LDS Faith. What a fallacy. McConkies book, although a good reference at times, was never official church doctrine despite the title. The reference in 1st Nephi the great and abominable church is not a reference to the Catholic faith at all, but a reference to any and all that isn’t the church of God.
Not withstanding the forgoing, McConkies views were not that different than those of most of authorities of the Protestant Reform..
That feeling of anxiety and anger boils up every time I see this doctrine about becoming a god.. and watching LDS argue that this isn’t polytheism… and arguing over what is and isn’t doctrine. I feel like I’ve had the same conversation word for word a million times. It’s so hard not to be discouraged and wash my hands of the LDS people. How do we reach into such deep dark deceit and shine a light? It reminds me of my life before Jesus, you just cannot see the truth no matter how obvious it is. Mostly because you don’t want to. I had no idea having a relationship with Jesus would be so amazing, if I had I would not have fought it for so long. Jesus never chased after anyone. Like the father watching his prodigal son walk away. But when we make an effort to know him, the flood gates open. He runs to us, just as the father ran to his prodigal son as soon as he was within sight. If we could just get Mormons to take the first step, they would never go back, Jesus would meet them right there and they would never be the same. Jesus is so much better. You don’t have to fudge the facts, blur the doctrine, or be afraid. He makes himself known in powerful ways if we just let the fear of being wrong get out of the way. Jesus is the only way, know him and you will know the truth. What he offers is better than any exaltation, better than the temple, better than any other doctrine. He will astound you with his power. Looking back at discussions between my husband and I, he was so afraid. So afraid that the church would not be true. So afraid that he was wrong. So afraid to let Jesus in. So afraid to show any weakness. Though he isn’t perfect now and still carries the scars of Mormonism, his faith and his willingness to seek truth humble me. His transformation has inspired me. It’s like giving up a drug, it’s hard and scary, but soooooo worth it. My dear Mormon friends, do not be afraid.
oceancoast.
I’ve been doing this for years and I’ll tell you the sweet refrain we hear constantly from Mormons is “That’s not official LDS……….”whatever, fill in the blank.
It gets incredibly tiresome and old.
And then we have Mormons tell us what Mormonism’s official whatever is and it’s clear that it’s whatever they personally think that’s what makes it official. Mormonism is an empty canvas upon which Mormons paint their own pictures.
Do I need to list all of the things that your prophets and leaders have taught, brought forth from the pulpit at General Conference in any era and that carries the imprinter of the Salt Lake City LDS church and still Mormons whine, “But that’s not official!”?
I believe Dr. Walter Martin coined the phrase, “The Maze of Mormonism” and it is indeed a maze.
What we know is that current Mormon authorities have stopped saying much that could pass for official Mormon dogma and are sticking pretty much to motivational pep talks about cleaning living and the women’s relief society.
McConkie and Young along with Fielding Smith and a bunch of others are a treasure trove of inane and ridiculous proclamations all of which are now labeled, “their opinion”. At the time their words were considered as good as scripture.
I’ve got an idea for you. Take off your LDS magic glasses and read the NT and discover who God is and what His plan of salvation entails. It will be refreshing to you; Living Water, Bread of Life, the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Ocean said
Wow, Mormons like Ocean never Cease to amaze me, You guys tell us people like Bruce are not “Official” church Doctrine and cannot speak for the Church. Yet People like you sure seem to speak on behalf of the Church and sure seem to know what really was meant or said. Are you able to speak on behalf of the Church? No your not.
Now you complain we dont know what were talking about, but let me ask you this, Why do you lie so much, you have been proven to do that and espoused and you still do it.
Then also why do you ignore what your leaders say? You claim it is their opinion, but when they themselves claim otherwise, you ignore what they say in favor of what you believe, and you wonder why no one takes you serious.
It is simply fascinating to me how some Mormon can be “all that” in one generation and a total non-person a generation later.
McConkie, it was said, was the go to guy for the leadership in the LDS church when they wanted clarification regarding Mormon doctrine.
Can I ask a question? Did the LDS church publish McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” book? Did people within the LDS church use it as a reference as to what LDS doctrine is/was? And while we’re at it, how about the Journal of Discourses? Mormons can’t run fast enough to get away from that beauty. They absolutely hate it when we quote from it.
Mormons just can’t seem to wrap their minds around the fact that these so called prophets were fools and said foolish things; like fools do. But the people who heard them at the time sucked it down like nectar from the Mormon gods.
Did the LDS church teach any of these in the past? Does the LDS church still teach any/all of them? If they were taught and are no longer taught, does that mean they were never really official?
Polygamy will be commonly practiced in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom.
Our race and nationality assignment on this earth was based upon our valiancy in the pre-existence.
The “church of the devil” are all churches except the LDS church.
Blacks were the least valiant in the pre-existence and, therefore, are the most inferior race with the lowest opportunities on this earth.
It is against God’s will to practice birth control.
Righteous saints tend to be wealthy because God blesses them with prosperity.
In the near future, the U.S. Government will collapse and the LDS church will be instrumental in saving it.
In the near future, many LDS saints will be called to go to Missouri to build a large city called the “New Jerusalem.”
Some sins can only be atoned for by the taking of the perpetrator’s own life.
Dinosaur bones and other ancient fossils came from materials in space that were used in the construction of this planet.
The prophet and apostles regularly meet in person with Jesus Christ in the temple.
Natural disasters are often purposely caused by God as punishment for lack of obedience.
Native American skin will become lighter when they turn to the gospel and are obedient to the commandments.
Satan is in control of the water which makes it dangerous for missionaries and other saints to swim and recreate in or on water.
God was once a man, and men can eventually become Gods.
Has anyone ever heard of the Lectures On Faith put together by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon? My understanding is that these lectures were used for the School of the Prophets.
Lecture 5 is interesting. Is this consistent with current LDS doctrine? Ah, I know. Things change!
“There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things–by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space–They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;–he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him, and was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name, and is called the Son because of the flesh–and descendedin suffering below that which man can suffer, or, in other words, suffered greater sufferings, and was exposed to more powerful contradictions than any man can be. But notwithstanding all this, he kept the law of God, and remained without sin: Showing thereby that it is in the power of man to keep the law and remain also without sin. And also, that by him a righteous judgment might come upon all flesh, and that all who walk not in the law of God, may justly be condemned by the law, and have no excuse for their sins. And he being the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fulness of the glory of the Father-possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one, or in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things: by whom all things were created and made, that were created and made: and these three constitute the Godhead, andare one: The Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power and fulness: Filling all in all–the Son being filled with the fulness of the Mind, glory and power, or, in other words, the Spirit, glory and power of the Father–possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom: sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father–a Mediator for man–being filled with the fulness of the Mind of the Father, or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father: which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments: and all those who keep his commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all: being filled with the fulness of his glory, and become one in him, even as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one. 3 From the foregoing account of the Godhead, which is given in his revelations, the Saints have a sure foundation laid for the exercise of faith unto life and salvation, through the atonement and mediation of Jesus Christ, by whose blood they have a forgiveness of sins, and also, a sure reward laid up for them in heaven, even that of partaking of the fulness of the Father and the Son, through the Spirit. As the Son partakes of the fulness of the Father through the Spirit, so the saints are, by the same Spirit, to be partakers of the same fulness, to enjoy the same glory; for as the Father and the Son are one, so in like manner the saints are to be one in them, through the love of the Father, the mediation of Jesus Christ, and the gift of the Holy Spirit; they are to be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ.”
I loved your comment Brewed. I was saying the same thing to my husband an hour ago. It just hurts my heart how Mormons twist the words of God to fit this other god. I can’t think of one reason I would want to be LDS again other than my love for the people. I was spiritually stagnant in the LDS faith and since coming to the true God I feel this new hope and faith that is better than I could have imagined. The Christian God is the greater God. If the Mormon God was true (and thats a big IF) isn’t it strange that our imagination would be able to create a God greater than him? To me God has got to be even greater than anything that I can possibly imagine? Can anyone conceive of a god that would be greater than the Christian God? I can’t. In my opinion, this LDS doctrine of making men Gods seems to decrease God to build up men and screams heresy. If Christians are going to leave the God they love so much for this seemingly scandalous doctrine, what proof do they have that what Mormons say is true? The Book of Mormon isn’t proof. It is looked at as fiction by historians and doesnt even teach the doctrines that are so unique to the faith. The only thing Mormons can do is attack Christianity and the Bible. The scriptures warn several times to beware of false prophets. Christians can’t accept Mormonism because they believe Christ and his Apostles. They do watch for false prophets and there is no reason that we should believe that Joseph Smith doesn’t fit that category.
Falcon said
I know you have read this before, since I have posted it many times.
Ocean and all the other LDS here can claim all they want that things said were mere Opinion, But notice what Bruce said about his book and you will read it.
Keep in mind Bruce stated He looks to people Like Joseph Smith and Bringham Young as recognized doctrinal authorities, But yet LDS no longer view there prophets this way.
Just a few notes.
Bruce R. McConkie was a member of the Seventy when he wrote the book Mormon Doctrine. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, while appreciating the work, noted over one thousand needed corrections from the first edition. It was decided to forbid the reprinting of the book, until six years later when Spencer W. Kimball was assigned to assisted in editing and correcting. It was declared to be a book without authority when published, and though corrected under the guidance of an apostles, it was still held to be unofficial in its origin and not authoritative in doctrine.
While a great book, it is not a source of official doctrine, and never has been.
Man all those changes. Sounds a lot like what happened with the Book of Mormon or the Book of Commandments or the Book of Abraham with Smith making up another one of his fictitious works. Or we could point out the ever changing versions,(eight of them right?) of Smith’s first vision. Change is inevitable in Mormonism because of progressive revelation which basically means, “Let’s just keep doing everything over until we get it right.” Unfortunately none of it is right. Just a bunch of spiritual children playing religion.
Look none of it matters in the end any way. What matters is the individuals testimony. That makes any, all, some of Mormonism true. And if you don’t believe it, it doesn’t matter. Just don’t leave!
Shem, I honestly wonder if you read the preface I posted. You make excuses for why it is no big deal. I understand he was not a prophet when he wrote the Book and that it was note “Official doctrine” and you said
Now if they noted all these problems why did they allow it to be published before printing?
Now if your claiming all these needed corrections, can you provide evidence of this, I ask for it because Bruce said this
So you really think presdient and prophet J.F.S. would not notice all these issues?
Now you also go onto say
So you mean to say, it takes apostles to correct former prophets? Remember Bruce said
Notice he states that
Wow sources of authority are quoted, so I guess they are no longer sources of authority are they? Then he goes onto say,
I guess you dont agree do you?
How can Bruce say
But now everyone feels this is not true, that is why they no longer publish the book, but what about all the people who read it and believed it from years ago?
Bruce ends by saying
So I guess these guys also amount to nothing now a days since they are being dismissed by you and other LDS.
There must be a lot of doctrine that Mormons have discarded since “Mormon Doctrine” by Bruce McConkie was published in 1958. Things they no longer want public. The LDS publishing house published the book; now all Mormons in lock-step disavow it with statements about how unofficial it was, how many errors it had. How did the LDS Church lead by a prophet end up publishing such a reprehensible book for so many many years. It makes one wonder about the claims of divine leadership that they could have such a despicable book published by the LDS publishing house with the bold title “Mormon Doctrine” and have it be completely unofficial and riddled with error.
As for Martin Luther’s statements on the Pope – well, I affirm them – the Pope is in the seat of the Anti-Christ. Does this mean the Pope is all bad? Nope. It just means he has taken a role, a title unto himself that only Christ can fill – namely the head of the Church. Any who would usurp the role of Jesus as the head of His Church is in the office of the AntiChrist. Now Thomas Monson does not really qualify as an AntiChrist as he is not heading up a Christian Church. If the LDS Church were Christian, then Monson definitely would be an AntiChrist.
By the way – I find it amusing when I think about the first Mormon I really got to know – and how she enthusiastically pointed me to “Mormon Doctrine” by Bruce McConkie as a guide to understanding her faith. It wasn’t really that long ago. It’s a fast changing world when it comes to Mormon unofficial doctrine – what’s in and what’s out. I am sure my friend from college now proclaims how riddled with error “Mormon Doctrine” is – it makes for a kind of dark humor.
When I was at BYU one of my religion instructors taught from Mormon Doctrine. We had required readings. i was very much given the impression that it was the best compilation of summaries of Mormon beliefs. I wonder if they still teach from it? Have they specified what is opinion?
Rick B said..
,
It’s not just a complaint, it’s evident.
Why do you lie so much? It’s very evident that many of the critics and antagonists of the LDS faith either don’t know what they are talking about or they are blatantly lying or a combination of both. One must wonder what drives such antagonistic behavior. Is it just a case of unrighteous emotive antipathy that burns within these antagonists that consumes their soul? Or is it the cognitive dissonance the causes them so much discomfort when they are confronted by LDS with the truth of what LDS actually believe about their faith? Perhaps it’s both. Whatever the reason, it’s surely not because they are behaving as true Christians, are demonstrating in any sense that they are filled with the Spirit of Christ but to the contrary, they appear to me to demonstrate that they are filled with the spirit of contention.. spawned by the father of lies.
falcon said..
There is a simple solution.. Refrain from using the strawman argument that LDS leaders are somehow not suppose to be fallible humans with their own opinions. It has long been the held position in the church that the Official doctrinal works are simply the Scriptures and official declarations and proclamations. Everything else is considered opinion to some degree or another. This has been the standard since the 1800’s ..
They have always been opinion..
Got news for you falcon, There is no such thing as “LDS magic glasses”, and yes I have read the NT many times.. and without the Born Again Trinitarian glasses either.. Surprisingly, it doesn’t say what Born Again Evangelicals proclaim.. Not even close. Many of you claim it’s inerrant and complete, yet that notion is easily and objectively proven to be false.
Notice in the excerpt from the “Lectures” that I posted, the prophet Smith declared the Father a “personage of spirit”.
Then later, in one of his eight renditions of his first vision, the Father has a body. Now isn’t that amazing?
Actually it’s kind of difficult to follow the train of Smith’s thought in the “lectures” so it’s necessary to slow way down and almost diagram the sentences. It really appears to be amateur night with these Mormon prophets and apostles. It’s just a lot of endless speculation and entertainment for them as they revel in their latest brand new idea.
In his time, McConkie was the dude. He was Mr. Mormon Doctrine. Now he’s just a mistake filled speculator. But then aren’t all of these past Grand Poh Bahs of Mormonism simply yesterday’s faded LDS star?
A principle of sales and marketing is that people buy things emotionally and then they try to justify their purchase rationally.
Mormons buy Mormonism emotionally. They suppose that their emotional purchase is a spiritual confirmation of Mormonism being true. They then are stuck with trying to come up with some sort of evidence/rationale that will support what they wrongly assume was a spiritual communication. That’s why they end-up sounding so foolish and as if logic has escaped them.
Mormons fill Mormonism up with their own meaning. They ignore the evidence and the changing nature of the religion not even seeing that (the religion) is constantly reinventing itself. This is not continuous revelation. It is continuous confusion.
All I have to say is that the emotional hook must be deeply set for Mormons to ignore the obvious.
Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. That’s why He is a solid foundation. Religion is a structure, but in Jesus we have a person with whom we can form a bond. He is literally God incarnate. He’s not a created being or “a god”.
The Bible clearly tells us who He is. There is no need for another gospel, with a different god and a different plan of salvation. We are complete in Christ Jesus our Lord. He is the Alpha and Omega. He is the beginning and end. It is only through Him that we have eternal life.
Rick
I answered Falcon’s question, that is all. He asked “Did the LDS church publish McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” book? Did people within the LDS church use it as a reference as to what LDS doctrine is/was?”
I answered this. Yes the church published the book, but not initially, and not until after it had been corrected under the direction of the First Presidency. And, even after they had published it, they still declared it to be the work of the man, and not an official source of doctrine from the church. Yes, people still use it, and have used it since it was printed. I have used it on occasion when teaching in church. It is a great book. But it is not, nor has it ever been, an official source of doctrine from the church. What does this mean? It means that if there is anything that it contains that the official sources disagree with, we go with the official sources. It also means that the original 1958 edition, which was not approved by the church, and was actually banned from republishing, shouldn’t be used at all.
This does not, however, detract anything from the callings of Brother McConkie or those that assisted him in the church. They are still men of God. They just undertook an unapproved work and thus that work does not carry with it the authority of their calling. Get this strait, as us continually repeating it is getting rather boring.
4fivesolas
This is a Christian Church, but President Monson never claimed to be the head of it. Christ is and always will be the head of this church. The President is simply called to represent Christ on earth as he is not currently here.
Shem said
“This is a Christian Church, but President Monson never claimed to be the head of it. Christ is and always will be the head of this church. The President is simply called to represent Christ on earth as he is not currently here.”
Called by Whom? Perhaps you’re not aware of this but Christ is currently here Matthew 28:20 He has been with all true believers since his ascension. The Corporation seem unable to grasp this simple fact & that is why they have a false prophet to represent Christ.
Old man said..
by God.
Perhaps you should read your Bible more carefully. The text you referred to is part of the ‘Great Commission’ given to the ELEVEN.. (Use to be twelve, but there’s a vacancy because of Judas)..
Jesus called these eleven as special witnesses (apostles).. so although it may be a nice distortion of scripture to interpret the way you have, it doesn’t really say Jesus is will be with ALL true believers since his ascension. In fact it gives a somewhat ambiguous limit ..”until the end of the age”.. when is that? the end of the Iron age? Age of Pisces? (The age of Pisces doesn’t end until 2150, yet the Mayans thought it ended last December 21.)
Furthermore, what distinguishes ALL True believers from Saul of Tarsus? Wasn’t it he who was walking down the street and tripped, bumped his head on a rock and saw a light?? I’m sorry, Paul who saw Christ in a vision on the Road to Damascus.. If there is no distinction in being “Called”, then Paul was no different in his calling than anyone else, therefore you should not pay any special consideration to his writings or opinions than any other Christian..and vice versa. (so much for your Bible right?) Let me guess, you do consider Paul and Peter, John to actually have been called by God and give their words higher authority than the average Christian?
I don’t know, I was raised Catholic but I don’t remember thinking that the Pope could pull rank on Jesus. I don’t think any Catholic would nor would the Pope agree to that. There are any number of Christian religions who have a “head”. Quite frankly I think this is all about splitting hairs. It reminds me of when people use to say that Catholics pray to statues. I think the Pope is said to be Christ’s representative or some such thing. Actually I don’t want to get into the position of defending any of it since it’s something I left long ago
So what’s Monson the head of? He will become a Mormon god so what difference does it really make? I’ll bet he’s already gone through the ceremony declaring that he’s done enough to become a god. He’ll have his own planets and his own people loving and adoring him and worshiping him and praying to him as their god. He’s just getting a jump start. No big Mormon deal, right?
I understand that Mormons have to pass muster before Joseph Smith before they even get into the Mormon heaven. That’s a pretty big deal for Mormons. Joseph Smith as a checker of passports and IDs. What a role for a guy who’s now a Mormon god. Really, does Smith bebop back and forth from ruling his planets in order to do this or how does it work?
Maybe that woman who was writing to Sharon might have the answer.
Old Man–You are right on. As a former Mormon and Christ Follower I can tell you that the only way OUT of the fog is by examining the materials and why they can’t be true. Examining the foundational elements of the church and the ACTUAL words and documents that are rarely available is really the only thing I could do to reconcile my exit. Even when I knew I felt the need to continually figure out all the reasons why it couldn’t be TRUE. There was a lot to examine. Once the blinders come off it is an amazing process. Please to all of you never stop what you are doing here. You never know when someone like myself is going to “wake up”. Praise be to God for he alone is my “Vision”.
Falcon said: That’s why they end-up sounding so foolish and as if logic has escaped them.
Mormons fill Mormonism up with their own meaning. They ignore the evidence and the changing nature of the religion not even seeing that (the religion) is constantly reinventing itself. This is not continuous revelation. It is continuous confusion. All I have to say is that the emotional hook must be deeply set for Mormons to ignore the obvious. ***Please understand that when you are taught something from the day you are born and don’t have exposure to anything else due to the way “the church” sets itself up like an island it is hard to jump off*** Very very hard. While a Mormon I never had the luxury of examining the Bible and the BOM side by side. We always studied them in a linear fashion. When that didn’t square (which was rare because they emphasize the verses that they want you to focus on…) Either way the BOM, Prophets and Standard Works trump the bible. You really have to back up further to examine how the church began. Not the brochures and visitor center version– the REAL life happenings. THe information is readily available now but 15 years ago when I began my search it was impossible to find REAL answers. Its tough to turn your back on eternity without being sure. It is made even harder when you are told that every single possible resource is “Anti-M*****”.
Oceanview,
The big difference with Paul is that Peter accepted him. Paul had approval by the Apostles. We have no reason to believe Joseph Smith or any successors (actually Josephs son was supposed to succeed, Brigham Young just bullied everyone into voting for him, even with some of the apostles absent from the vote) was called of God and that they are not false prophets. Also, Judas was replaced by Mattias, there isn’t a vacancy.
Oceancoast
Your apologetic gymnastics only prove that you really don’t know what you’re talking about. Apologists will go to any lengths to justify their ridiculous interpretations & you’re no exception. I’m well aware of the great commission & I don’t need you or anyone else who follows a false prophet to explain it to me. As you contend that the verses I quoted from Matthew only apply to the apostles let me give you a few more,
John 10:28-29
John 14:17-18
John 14:23
Are you so naive or perhaps arrogant as to imagine that only members of the LDS Corporation know what the Bible teaches?
Ps. you seem to be pretty well versed in the occult, much like Joseph Smith I suppose. Age of Pisces indeed.
Old Man
I very well know what I’m talking about Old man.
Well if so, you certainly didn’t seem to demonstrate that fact when you choose to cite that passage in the context in which you did. As for following false prophets.. Speak for yourself.
All fine and good, but they are addressing an entirely different contextual issue than Matt. 28. And the issue you were complaining about was related to being who is “Called” by God, and so far you haven’t answered the question as to if there is a difference between the callings of Paul and any other ‘true believer according to your own interpretation of scripture.. I imagine you ignored that part of my post because it exposes the fallacy of your complaint and your reasoning.
No not at all, but it does appear that LDS tend to understand the Bible better than most.. In fact there was done a study (I believe by the PEW Foundation) that showed the LDS are more likely to read and understand and actually live according to the Bible than other forms of Christianity.
Age of Pisces has nothing to do with the occult. Your statement just demonstrates just how ignorant and emotively biased against LDS you are.
jaxi,
Is there some reason you keep calling me Oceanview instead of Oceancoast?
How do you know this? is it because it’s written in ACTS? by presumably LUKE who was Paul’s friend and accomplice? The bottom line is Paul is an apostle because Paul said so and you accept that as good enough.
Yet when Joseph Smith claims that Christ called him and gave him authority, you dismiss it.. Fulfilling the very words of Christ – ” For Jesus Himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country.”
There was a vacancy, that’s why Mattias was chosen. That narrative occurs in ACTS, but in MATT 28, when the great commission was given, there was only 11..
Oceancoast, lol, sorry
I know this because Orthodoxy has this little thing called apostolic succession. This is where the beliefs and traditions of the Church are handed down generation after generation. You can bet if Paul wasn’t accepted by the other Apostles there would have been a huge outcry against him, especially in areas where the Church was being established by the other Apostles. But you don’t see that happening.
So let me get this straight. Your tactic is to prove Christian Tradition wrong in order to establish Joseph Smith as right. Something being wrong (not that I’m agreeing it is) doesn’t make the other thing right. This is how you make atheists from ex Mormons. Mormons figure out that there is no reason to believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet but you’ve done such a good job attacking Christianity that they don’t want any part of that either.
Joseph Smith has very little honor outside his own country either. The only success being made by the LDS Church is in areas that don’t have access to information.
I was just correcting you because you said “Use to be twelve, but there’s a vacancy because of Judas.” You said there’s not there was. I realize now it was a typo but wasn’t sure.
Jaxi,
This is a typical Mormon poster tactic. Attack Christianity to which I say (as you did) how does that make Mormonism true?
So Hindu’s should attack Christianity and that will make their religion true?
What nonsense. The point is that Mormonism can’t stand on its own. It’s a farce. The whole premise is bogus, that is the great apostasy. Mormonism needs all of these conspiracy theories and dastardly plots to try and justify something as false as a restored gospel.
So Mormonism was real first century Christianity? That’s like saying that a UFO religion was first century Christianity.
There is no evidence for Mormonism in any of its ever evolving states even around before 1830.
What a total joke!
Oceancoast
Credit where credit’s due, you are without doubt one of the most creative apologists I have yet to meet. To the casual observer what you say might make a little sense but your attempt at obfuscation & your dissembling of the issues at hand are nonsense to more knowledgeable Christians & are hardly worth responding to. Basically, in typical apologetic fashion you talk rubbish.
As for calling me ignorant, what can I say? Is it me who follows a convicted con man? Is it me who follows an adulterous polygamist claiming a divine calling? Is it me who follows a man who thought nothing of stealing from the members of his own organization? Is it me who follows a man who gave numerous different accounts of his so-called visions? Is it me who follows a man who claimed to translate a book written in a non existent language by a member of a non-existent Jewish tribe?
For you to call me ignorant when you follow a man who did all of those things & more shows how deep your capacity for self delusion really is.
You say I haven’t answered your question concerning Paul, may I remind you that the issue under discussion was that of the presence of Christ in the life of the believer. I quoted Matthew & you told me Christs words were for his apostles only so I gave you 3 further quotes from Scripture. Your pride would not allow you to accept that so you rambled on about callings, something that that had nothing at all to do with what I was talking about, in short, as I said above, you dissemble to divert attention away from the fact that you are wrong!
“it does appear that LDS tend to understand the Bible better than most.. In fact there was done a study (I believe by the PEW Foundation) that showed the LDS are more likely to read and understand and actually live according to the Bible than other forms of Christianity.”
Be good enough to tell me how an organization such as the PEW trust can make any kind of valid comment on what Christians understand? The second sentence in the above comment says it all, they believe that Mormons are Christians thereby invalidating any conclusions they make.
I beg to differ, the age of Pisces has everything to do with the occult, it is founded in astrology & is without a shadow of doubt, occultist in origin.
Jaxi
What you say is accurate & would not be contested by any Christian, but as Ocean is not a Christian & is very selective in which parts of scripture to quote from he will argue till the cows come home. That’s the problem with Corporation apologists, they claim the bible is true as far it is translated correctly but it is they who get to decide which parts. Simply put, Mormons, whatever claims they make to the contrary, do not understand Scripture they suffer from confirmation bias.
Djstamps
Thanks for that, I suppose the best way to describe Mormon understanding of scripture is to call it “cherry picking” select the verses that best suit your argument even if taken out of context, & ignore the parts that don’t fit.
Jaxi,
Nope that’s not the tactic, and I am in no way trying to prove Christianity wrong. You are correct proving something wrong doesn’t make something else right. Yet there is a question of the “Traditions” that have been handed down and grandfathered into the beliefs and doctrines of the Traditional Christian faiths. Those “traditions” are all I put into question.. Not to prove them wrong, but to establish the Objective reality about them. This is that they are “Subjective” Traditions nothing more.
The conflict with LDS beliefs comes when you assert those “Subjective” Traditions are objective truth and thus certain LDS Beliefs cannot be true because the conflict with those traditions. Yet the reality is those Traditions are NOT objective truth, but subjective beliefs. When that is understood and acknowledged then there is a more level playing field so to speak with regards to critical analysis of the LDS Claims that allows for them to be looked at more objectively.
Apostolic succession, yes, but that too is largely based upon a subjective tradition, which was handed down from Peter not Paul… And in that regard, what do we actually have from Peter? Not much at all.. So the succession question is largely based upon claims of those who succeeded and a propagated Tradition. There is no objective basis to say that Traditions is sound.. You simply accept it.
Furthermore, if there was an ‘outcry’ against Paul, how would you know today? We know very little about Paul, no doubt in my mind that his human failings were largely whitewashed out of history by the Orthodoxy. There has been Gnostic works uncovered that suggest Paul may have been more closely related to the Gnostics than emerging proto-Orthodoxy wanted known. A problem with history we all face is that it’s not provable.. And in any conflict, ideological or otherwise, history is written by the victors, and it’s not necessarily the whole truth. And in the case of Christian History, when the emerging Orthodoxy won the politics of the day, the sought to eradicate any and all opposing thought, writings, etc. And they did this by obtaining the Edict of Thessalonica by Emperor Theodosius making it treason against the State and Emperor to possess any writings or not agree with the emerging dogma.. It’s often suggested this was simply to stamp out paganism, that maybe a cover story, but what the orthodoxy was most concerned about was the Gnostics and other non-Orthodox forms of Christianity that existed within the Christian world.
djstamps
I forgot to welcome you. I just love it when former Mormons show-up here and provide their insights and experiences to the cause of Christ.
I like your slant on how the LDS church keeps everything in the box.
Oceanview
You are really on a flight of fancy concerning the Apostle Paul. About the only thing you’re accomplishing is revealing your ignorance.
What OC is doing here, is comparing apples and oranges. What John was actually doing here, was refuting the Gnostic Heresy that Jesus did not come in the flesh, and how through love we become the sons of God. He begins his letter by saying,
John writes that Jesus was REAL. They saw him and touched him. He then says,
John says God is light. He that walks in the light hates the darkness. The blood of Jesus purifies us from ALL SIN. We then know God by doing what Jesus did, love God and their neighbor. Those who do not believe these things are not of God:
Then we get to where OC quoted from:
He uses this to claim that Sharon’s argument is invalid because this is about the “spiritual world”. But that is not the point that John is trying to make. He says we are the Children of God because we LOVE GOD. He then says, “what we will be HAS NOT YET BEEN MADE KNOWN.” He then says when he – CHRIST – appears, WE SHALL BE LIKE HIM, for we shall see him as he is.” To understand what John means, you have to read the rest. First John answers WHY Jesus appeared:
Jesus came to destroy the devil’s work. To reconcile us back to God. When we believe in the Son, we take on God’s Nature: LIGHT & LOVE. Having the love of God in you MAKES you a Son of God:
John states explicitly that are the Sons of God because we have the LOVE OF GOD. God sent his Son because he LOVES US. John then states unequivocally that NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN GOD. We have seen the SON, because he is LIKE US. God lives IN US, and we know it by the Spirit that God gave us. It is ALL ABOUT LOVE:
Again, John states that we live IN GOD, because of LOVE. And then John says something crucial here, he says whoever lives in love LIVES IN GOD, and this makes us complete. It drives out fear, fear of punishment because as he said above, “the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.” And here is where OC misapplies the context of what John is saying because John says, “IN THIS WORLD WE ARE LIKE JESUS.” In THIS world. That is why when he appears, we shall be like him, because he is like us, IN THIS WORLD. No one has seen GOD, but we have seen his SON, because he took on human form. We are only like the invisible God when we take on the divine nature which is LIGHT & LOVE. Nowhere does it say that we will become GOD in the same way that he is GOD. The divine nature is to LOVE. Again, those who do not love their brothers and sister who they HAVE SEEN, can’t love God WHO THEY HAVE NOT SEEN. And what is this love? He defines it:
They only ones that overcome the world are those who believe Jesus is the SON of GOD. Those who take on the divine nature do not continue to sin because the blood of Jesus purifies them from sin. This is how we are born of God:
OC then says,
Huh? Sharon’s analogy is DEAD ON, because IN THIS WORLD WE ARE LIKE JESUS. We take on the divine nature when we take on Jesus LOVE. John specifically says, “what we will be HAS NOT YET BEEN MADE KNOWN.” We are like Jesus only through LOVE. That is the divine nature. We are not GODS, as Jo Smith claimed, we are children of God through the divine nature we take upon ourselves and our reward is to be reconciled with God forever, in this life and in the next.
Unfortunately, this is not true. This is why Mormons are so hypocritical, and remember this passage as you read the rest of what OC writes. Joseph Smith said,
How can Mormons claim that there is any room for speculation when Jo Smith himself said that NOTHING would be WITHHELD and NOTHING could stop that? All would be made known, if there was one or many gods, and they would be proven, revealed and explained. Yet, we have OC saying:
This is NOT what Jo Smith said. Not at all. He said that EVERYTHING would be revealed, and that it was Christians who had the problems, because they didn’t believe in “modern revelation” and Mormon prophets who could and did (and still do according to them) have the power to make ALL THINGS KNOWN. Mormons act like none of us have read their scriptures; that we don’t know their doctrines or what they say. We know EXACTLY what Jo taught, and what the Church teaches and now denies, obfuscates and covers up. It is Mormons like OC who would put all this in a closet somewhere and deny that it was said. They interpret the simple teachings of the Bible, it’s SIMPLE words that THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD, with their high and mighty and arrogant stance that we don’t look at these things in their context. The simple FACT is, the Bible states that there is ONE GOD. PERIOD. He has NEVER BEEN SEEN. These are not OUR WORDS, they are JOHN’s WORDS. We know him through his SON Jesus, who is GOD INCARNATE and that is how we have SEEN GOD. This is repeated over and over again in the New Testament. If there is ONE GOD, there is not THREE GODS. The whole reason for the declarations of Isaiah and others was because of IDOLS. Idols that are still being created by Jo Smith and every other Mormon “prophet”. This perversion was even taken to another level when Brigham Young taught that Adam was the Father. According to Jo, there would be no “speculation” or “opinion” because God so ordained it in his “council of gods”, that ALL would be made known in the ‘last dispensation’. But uh-uh, don’t believe Jo, believe this:
But Jo said just the opposite. He said this very knowledge which “our forefathers have awaited with anxious expectation to be revealed in the last times” would be revealed, and we would know all about these “many gods” that Jo speaks of. But the Mormon “prophets” do just what OC claims that the Hebrews did in the OT. OC claims,
Mormons claim that Isaiah and others HID from Israel the existence of other GODS because they were “strict monotheists”. Jo didn’t have that problem, but modern “prophets” do. They avoid speaking of these other GODS they say, because “The apparent concealment of identities beyond our Heavenly Father is only for this mortal probation, NOT when we are with him.” This is poppyc*ck. The apparent concealment is because Mormon “prophets” have no clue about God. They can’t even decide if he is Adam or not. First, they believed in the Trinity, then they believed in TWO Gods, with the Father being a spirit and the son being God in the flesh, and the Holy “Ghost” being the mind of God, then it was THREE GODS, with two flesh and bone Gods and a Spirit man Holy “Ghost”, and then it was many GODS, then Adam god…. All this “knowledge” was just what Mormon “prophets” believed at the time. Now, it’s keep all that secret and “we just don’t know”, and “you don’t need to know”. And then OC’s last jab at the Trinity:
The PRETENDING is going on — Pretending that Jo didn’t say that NOTHING WOULD BE WITHHELD. He claims that the Bible is far from the “final word of God” but won’t accept what his own “prophets” have taught. The cannon of the Mormons wasn’t compiled by God, but by errant men who got the church to VOTE on what they felt they wanted to include in it, things that were politically correct in the 19th and 20th centuries. They have closed their canon just as surely as they claim Christians have done with the Bible.
And that was done for good reason. Jesus was God’s ultimate REVELATION, and his apostles were chosen to explain him to the world. Until another true prophet comes along with POWER to usher Christ into his Millennial Reign as explained in Revelation Chapter 11, we will TEST those that claim to be apostle but are not (Revelation 2:2) and wait for the advent of the two witnesses. And again the TRINITY was being taught centuries before Nicaea, and so the “politically correct” argument is a straw man.
LOL. Speculation. The Gnostics believed that Jesus had not come in the flesh. Paul taught just the opposite because he had a divine revelation that proved it to him. Mormons love the Gnostics because their teaching align more with that heresy than with the Bible.
This sentence is non sequitur. The Edict is self-explanatory:
The edict was to stop HERESY, of which Arianism was of the first order: