Very stuck on this LDS doctrine

[lattelady]

For Lilac,

Just a quick comment on a couple of Bible scriptures that have been mentioned as supportive of the idea the there are "gods" (more than one God) spoken of in the Bible. I believe the Psalms reference has come up a couple of times (Psalm 82:6), and then one that was from Clark87: John 10:37. Clark87, you mentioned (I believe it was you...I hope I have the right name) that in John 10:37 God mentions different definitions for gods? The scripture actually reads, "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does." Maybe you typed the wrong reference?

The Psalm 82:6 is one that seems to be repeatedly taken out of context. This verse is not referring to "gods" in the sense of deities at all. If you read the whole chapter in it's context you'll understand it better. In it, the psalmist is talking about a "great assembly" in heaven that God is presiding over. And during this assembly, He's giving judgment among the "gods."

The language of the Old Testament--and in the ancient Near East--rulers and judges were sometimes given the title "god." (Even Pharoahs of Egypt were sometimes referred to this way).

God judges them for their partiality to the wicked and unjust. God puts rulers and judges in place, whether they know Him or not.

But this verse isn't talking about the reality of many gods (deities to be worshipped); you have to read it in its context.

[Dr T]

I like that you are focusing on what the Bible says and looking at doctrine. Keep doing that, stick with it and see if the other LDS stuff is not from their own works or extra-biblical before you decide. :)

[PastorBob]

While I am not a member, I can say conclusively, that the church does not support the doctrine of God as man, due to this statement by Gordon B. Hinckley:

August 4, 1997 issue of Time magazine.

Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.

A: Yeah

Q: ... about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.

The Mormon Church would not teach a satanic doctrine, in my humble opinion.

Lucifer was cast from heaven for believing he could become like or a God:

Isaiah 14:

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden for the same reason as Lucifer was cast out of heaven, when he told them to try and do what he did:

1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

[Just_A_Guy]

The Psalm 82:6 is one that seems to be repeatedly taken out of context. This verse is not referring to "gods" in the sense of deities at all. If you read the whole chapter in it's context you'll understand it better. In it, the psalmist is talking about a "great assembly" in heaven that God is presiding over. And during this assembly, He's giving judgment among the "gods."

The language of the Old Testament--and in the ancient Near East--rulers and judges were sometimes given the title "god." (Even Pharoahs of Egypt were sometimes referred to this way).

God judges them for their partiality to the wicked and unjust. God puts rulers and judges in place, whether they know Him or not.

But I don't think that's how Jesus Himself interpreted that Psalm. In John 10:33-36, Jesus is accused of blasphemy because he, "being a man, makest [Him]self God". Jesus retorts by quoting that scripture.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

If Jesus thought the Psalm only referred to making oneself a judge or a ruler, then His play on words here is quite disingenuous and doesn't answer His accusers at all.

[lattelady]

JustAGuy, his retort answers his accusers very well if you understand Him to mean that He is claiming to be God--because He IS God. He is not JUST the Son of God, He is also GOD. (This points to the teaching of the Trinity, but I realize that the LDS church doesn't believe in the Trinity--as in, One God in three persons). It's why He said in John 10:30, "I and the Father are one." This is when they picked up stones to kill Him--they understood quite well what He was inferring--He was claiming to be God.

God, in Psalm 84 called judges and rulers 'gods', and they were divinely appointed by Him. John 10:35 "If he called them 'gods', unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; v.36--"say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

It absolutely answers his accusers, as He is saying (Paraphrase)--if men can be titled "gods" (as in judges and rulers), how much more should the term be allowed of the One who the Father sent--Jesus; this is understood, in this context, to those who believe Jesus is God. Even the Jews understood that and were angered by it!

[lattelady]

The quote that PastorBob posted above from President Gordon B. Hinckley has honestly confused me. I, as a non-member can (if I want to) bring up quite a bit of information/quotes from a variety of past prophets and church leaders in reference to thoughts like:--"As man now is, God once was;..." Joseph Smith and Brigham young both taught that God was once a man (not anti-mormon jargon, just quotes from former leaders of the LDS church).

I don't understand why President Hinckley would have treated the question that way, with so many "I don't know's..."

Can anyone answer that for me?

Edited October 23, 2009 by lattelady

[Just_A_Guy]

The quote that PastorBob posted above from President Gordon B. Hinckley has honestly confused me. I, as a non-member can (if I want to) bring up quite a bit of information/quotes from a variety of past prophets and church leaders in reference to thoughts like:--"As man now is, God once was;..." Joseph Smith and Brigham young both taught that God was once a man (not anti-mormon jargon, just quotes from former leaders of the LDS church).

I don't understand why President Hinckley would have treated the question that way, with so many "I don't know's..."

Can anyone answer that for me?

The question asked was "Is this the teaching of the church today?" The answer is "no". If you fixate on what follows the "I don't know"s, you see President Hinckley answering the direct question, acknowledging some of the prior statements underlying the idea, and properly categorizing it as speculation.

[Re John 10:34-36 and Psalms]It absolutely answers his accusers, as He is saying (Paraphrase)--if men can be titled "gods" (as in judges and rulers), how much more should the term be allowed of the One who the Father sent--Jesus; this is understood, in this context, to those who believe Jesus is God.

I think we can agree that the Jews understood Jesus to be proclaiming Himself God. (I think we can further agree that He was right.)

I disagree with your interpretation, however; because under that interpretation verses 34-36 simply do not refute the charge of blasphemy. They basically boil down to "it's not blasphemy if the Father has indeed sanctified me and sent me to the world" (see v. 36)--and in that case, why the reference to Psalms at all? It doesn't advance the argument; it's just a rhetorical gimmick that distracts from the main issue.

If John Doe has sons Johnny, Juan, and João, and I go to the bank and invoke the name of John Doe--the names by which Johnny, Juan, and João are known have no bearing on whether I am in fact John Doe or his duly authorized agent. Referring to a previously-executed power of attorney, though, might bolster my argument a lot more.

Edited October 24, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[lattelady]

Just to go back to Psalm 82:6, if this were God speaking to men and telling them, "I said 'You are gods';" this passage makes no sense in that context. I would understand if He had said 'You will be gods' or 'You are going to be gods', but none of them, as mere mortals are walking around as gods, unless you're telling me that is what you believe about LDS member today--that they are all gods NOW. The other part that would be confusing is what He goes on to say. "I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.' But you will die like mere men;" So, are they gods, or are they men?

I believe it's because they are MEN, but not just MERE men, they are rulers, judges, authority that God has divinely appointed. And in the last half of verse 7 He says, "you will fall like every other ruler." Do gods fall?

[Just_A_Guy]

I think Psalm 82:6 is ambiguous--it certainly isn't a "proof text" in and of itself. But much of the Psalm has to do with administering justice to, and taking care of, the weak; and the idea of all of these needy individuals being gods in embryo would certainly ram home the overall point.

The Psalm is addressed to men, yes [though I think we could quibble about WHICH men 'til the cows come home]. But it is addressed (IMHO, and this is probably where we're never gong to agree) to men who have divine potential, in every sense of the word.

[lattelady]

If Psalm 82:6 is not a "proof text" for men becoming gods, then why is it used so much to bolster that view? The verse doesn't support the "idea of all these needy individuals being gods in embryo" either. Again, do gods fall from godhood? v. 7 says "But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler." The context of the chapter is so important.

[Just_A_Guy]

If Psalm 82:6 is not a "proof text" for men becoming gods, then why is it used so much to bolster that view?

I agree with you that it shouldn't be used as a proof text. But in conjunction with certain other Biblical and extra-Biblical texts, it can be used to make a case that the idea of man's attaining a degree of divinity was not as offensive to the Bible's authors as it seems to be to those who purport to follow the Bible now.

The verse doesn't support the "idea of all these needy individuals being gods in embryo" either. Again, do gods fall from godhood? v. 7 says "But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler." The context of the chapter is so important.

Even Mormons aren't trying to say that the people being addressed in the 82nd Psalm have already attained godhood and are thus immortal. Mormon theology teaches that death (and resurrection) precedes exaltation. So this argument about the reference to dying is something of a non-starter.

[lattelady]

What about "You will fall like every other ruler?" What does that mean to you?

[Just_A_Guy]

What about "You will fall like every other ruler?" What does that mean to you?

Straw man. That's language is not within the King James version of the 82nd Psalm; nor is it in the existent Hebrew manuscripts. See this (non-Mormon) lexicon.

The KJV has it as "fall like one of the princes". The idea of a righteous prince falling through iniquity would strike quite a chord in a psalm believed to have been written during the reign of King David, don't you think?

Edited October 24, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Maya]

Hi Lillac how are you doing? From an ex lutheran to a protestant one might say..

This got so long I will make it to a blogg.... I post the site here when it is ready... It will be on my profile too...

What do you think is important to know before you can be babtized? Before you will be babtized? Any differance in lists and why?

Maya’s Blogs » LDS Mormon Network

Edited October 25, 2009 by Maya

[clark87]

Just a quick comment on a couple of Bible scriptures that have been mentioned as supportive of the idea the there are "gods" (more than one God) spoken of in the Bible. I believe the Psalms reference has come up a couple of times (Psalm 82:6), and then one that was from Clark87: John 10:37. Clark87, you mentioned (I believe it was you...I hope I have the right name) that in John 10:37 God mentions different definitions for gods? The scripture actually reads, "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does." Maybe you typed the wrong reference?

The Psalm 82:6 is one that seems to be repeatedly taken out of context. This verse is not referring to "gods" in the sense of deities at all. If you read the whole chapter in it's context you'll understand it better. In it, the psalmist is talking about a "great assembly" in heaven that God is presiding over. And during this assembly, He's giving judgment among the "gods."

The language of the Old Testament--and in the ancient Near East--rulers and judges were sometimes given the title "god." (Even Pharoahs of Egypt were sometimes referred to this way).

God judges them for their partiality to the wicked and unjust. God puts rulers and judges in place, whether they know Him or not.

But this verse isn't talking about the reality of many gods (deities to be worshipped); you have to read it in its context.

Good catch, Lattelady, John 10:37 was indeed a typo on my part, and I meant to write John 10:34.

As for the rest, you actually got understood what I was intending to say (even though I didn't explain myself so well). My main point is that most of this "multiple god" stuff is speculation. We have very few scriptures out there on "other gods", and what few scriptures that are even out there about "gods" aren't talking about other gods like God our Heavenly Father. It seems those that used "gods" often had different intended definitions for that word.

I don't understand why President Hinckley would have treated the question that way, with so many "I don't know's..."

I've noticed that all through the bible, different prophets had different strengths and weaknesses. Some knew more about miracles, some knew more about events leading to Christ's second coming, and some knew about events and prophets of the past. God would teach each prophet what they needed to take care of the people.

When Gordon B. Hinkley became prophet, he wasn't immediately given every bit of knowledge previous prophets knew. During that quote, he was being honest in that he didn't know much about the subject, nor did he know what the context of the quote was. Moreover, he probably didn't care to know. It's an obscure, unnecessary doctrine (in the way of salvation), made up mostly of speculation. There are a lot of other subjects with far greater importance.

The "doctrines" of "God being a man" and "multiple gods" are simply a handful of quotes that we milk for information that simply isn't there. We really don't know the context of half the quotes, or even if they were quoted correctly. Even if every quote was true, then we still would have a pitiful amount of knowledge on the subject.

[symphonyofdissent]

Littlelady

I would suggest that you do a bit more reading about ancient near eastern traditions in the time of the old testament and in particular on the concept of the council of the Gods. The plural nouns and verbs used throughout the creation account, the repeated mentions of divine assembly such as Job 1.

There are many great LDS sources on this concept, but if you want a protestant source ( and therefore trinitarian) one look to here

The Divine Council

The introductory essay is especially good at describing the structure of the heavenly court and its function.

The point where LDS thought would differ is on the question of whether Christ as Vice regent was the same personage or a distinct one from God the Father.

[symphonyofdissent]

I think that people get wary of the idea that God was once like man, because it implies that God must have once sinned and been flawed like man. Yet, our knowledge of Christ should dispel that notion. Christ was once like man, and yet also lived a sin free life. Indeed, Christians still argue that Christ is an unchanging being despite his having been born in a mortal body and having died and mortal death. We need not believe that God ever sinned or even that he ever was dependent on another higher deity. Indeed, I don't view it that way. In my view, God could have been the first being in this universe to achieve his potential and therefore he desired to share his exalted status with others. This is an area rampant with speculation, but there are many ways to think about this and we are not at all bound to view god as ever having been fallible.