lattelady

I'm unsure of what your posts mean. As far as Believer being able to "avoid all this harassment" by simply answering Snow's question, did you go all the way back to the original posts between the two of them? Snow was referring his question to the person who said something about God giving glory to His God. Snow took up objection to that. Believer asked if Snow believed God came down and took on mortality and it was actually Snow who refused to answer that question. Snow was posing his question about God giving glory to his God to the wrong person--Believer wasn't the one who made that comment.

I think Scripture says it IS God's word--otherwise, how would we know whether to trust it? In the D&C 1:37-39 it says, "Search these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled. What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away; but shall ALL befulfilled, WHETHER BY MY OWN VOICE, OR BY THE VOICE OF MY SERVANTS, IT IS THE SAME." [caps mine]

Not being a member, myself, Ladykemma2--what does it mean that the "singles ward was full of rejects?" Sad!

I thought that the words of your prophets were God's words thru the man. So if a Prophet taught that God was once a man, isn't that what the LDS church believes? "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man and sits enthroned in yonder heavens...I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, adn take away the veil so you can see...It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God...he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus CHrist himself did; and I will show it from the Bible." ("Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith", Joseph Fielding Smith pp.345-346

desirexnoel, sorry you felt bullied...I'm glad you're sharing your thoughts. Everyone's allowed to. Everyone should do it respectfully. Snow, isn't it really a question, then that you have about whether God lived a mortal life? A belief is strong. It would be hard to believe strongly in "he may or may not have." That would be like saying, "I believe strongly that there may or may not be a God."

Snow, the men who you are quoting may be early church "fathers", but I subscribe to the teachings of the early church apostles (Peter, James, Paul, etc.)--who teach the teachings of Jesus Christ. Most of the men you quote are teaching something in direct opposition to what Christ taught. So no, I would not consider them true believers in the gospel of Jesus Christ. He didn't teach that we could become gods, He taught that He was the ONLY way TO God.

I also wanted to ask, since you mentioned that the Pearl of Great Price is a sacred scripture that you trust, wouldn't this set of verses from that book support the idea of polytheism rather than monotheism? Pearl of Great Price-- Abraham 4:1-5 "And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods organized and formed the heavens and the earth. And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate, because they had not formed anything from the earth; and darkness reigned upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of the Gods was brooding upon the face of the waters. And they said: Let their be light; and there was light. And they comprehended the light for it was bright; and they divided the light or caused it to be divided, from the darkness. And the Gods called the light Day and the darkness they called Night..."

Snow, you are making multiple references to church fathers (who were apparently "not heretics") ascribing to a doctrine teaching that man can become gods. Have you given references or quotes for that?

The purpose of the question was that the word changed and I wasn't aware that they were all the same word. I've never, as I said before, heard of any of them. That was the only purpose...

In what way is it self-centered?

Moksha, "We don't really know much about that"? There's been much written, hasn't there? Pam, that's why I asked if Snow was referring to God being self-centered instead of accusatory. Again, it seems to me that you feel the need to keep a close watch over me. While in other posts, I've noticed others get away with saying very unkind things toward people and it's allowed. I've said nothing unkind.

And Snow, is it deification now, or divinization?

Snow, is it GOD that you find self-centered and shallow for creating us for His glory? Wow...when see all He has done for me, I want to give Him glory. He alone is deserving of it. He is not arrogant or self-centered. He is humble and self-sacrificing. Scripture teaches me that I was made to worship! Cool! Isaiah 43:21 "The people whom I formed for Myself, will declare my praise." 1 Corinthians 10:31 "Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." Psalm 86: 9 "All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worhip before thee, O Lord; And they shall glorify Thy name."

John Doe, I reconcile the John 10:34 scripture through crossreferencing it with the verse in Psalms that Jesus was actually quoting and then understanding that when He uses the word "gods", He's referring to rulers who were lording their authority over the people. Sometimes words have other meanings within scripture.

Snow, I've never heard of divinization or theosis. If you're talking about the ancient Christian church of the Bible, that was monotheistic and they didn't teach you could become a god.

bmy, is "Henotheist" the term that the LDS church subscribes to?

Believer_1829, so you do not believe that the church is monotheistic? (Who are the dang people?--me?) :)

Snow, I actually believe that I exist to worship God. I believe He has always existed. I believe He created me and that my purpose is to glorify Him with my life.

I was actually asking how the Church as a whole would reconcile the two opposing thoughts. How one person or another reconciles them would be as varied as the opinions found on any thread. The church has to have ONE stance. You can't teach "we can become gods", yet call your faith monotheistic. That's what I was trying to say. Pam, I could be wrong, but I get the impression that you dislike nonmembers using this site and asking questions. Correct me if I'm wrong...

That may be how you PERSONALLY reconcile the two thoughts, but just the word monotheistic means one God, and the worship of one God. If you are going to become gods and I assume you will be worshipped (otherwise, what's the point of being gods?), then your religion is not in essence monotheistic, right?

I've seen stated on at least a couple threads now by multiple members of the Church that they believe that the Church is monotheistic. I've also seen people say, " I'm not going to be 'like' God, I will BE a god." That is NOT monotheistic teaching. How do you reconcile these two opposing thoughts?

Beefche, or anyone else for that matter, if your statement has a firm foundation, you never ever have to bow out of a discussion!! Don't leave on account of any one person's comments!! If you believe firmly in what you're saying, then hold your ground! I have a "Flair Pin" on my Facebook page that says, "Speak your mind, even if your voice shakes." I love it because I want to learn to speak truth, even when it's scary. But truth has to have a firm foundation. If you can stand firm on your foundation, then STAND!

I'm not sure if you're familiar with Jewish law--but God gave laws to His people and then they took those laws and ran with them and interpreted them in their own way until they ended up with a supplemental book called the Mishnah which had 6 divisions and contained oral traditions (not God-given laws but ones they made up and added to His)--hundreds upon hundreds of laws. micromanaging to the enth degree. I have to admit, as someone who is not a member of the Church, I view this post and am suprised at how y'all split hairs over what seems small in light of the gospel. I'm also REALLY appalled at the way some of you joke and speak in a crude way of the sacrament (jokes about wiping butts, the ancients wiping their butts, etc). You're speaking of one of the holiest of practices we take part in in our church (remembering our Savior's sacrifice), and doing so with crude terms. Is it not as important a thing in the LDS church?

Also, "harsh reality-check"s from friends who "love us enough to be blunt" are necessary when we can't see things for what they really are. The problem with giving harsh reality-checks to people and being very blunt to people in a forum like this, especially to people who are really hurting or wounded, is that you don't have a relationship with them. There's friendship built so that they know that the place you're coming from is one of love and concern. That's why they might not take it well, or might be further hurt or wounded, and why others might want to come to their defense.

Something may be true, and not "patently false", but I think it's usually wise to heed the advice I was given about the words we speak: 1) ARE THEY TRUE 2)ARE THEY KIND 3)ARE THEY NECESSARY