Will you be gods?

[Dravin]

Why are you arguing against a premortal existence and how exactly does that relate to the topic of the thread? At any rate that scripture isn't testifying that man didn't have a premortal existence so I have no clue what you are going on about. It's testifying that Christ is divine and that he has authority above that of John/himself (possibly the priests and rabis in general).

A quick look at the topical guide provides these scriptures: Topical Guide: Man, Antemortal Existence of supporting a belief in a premortal existence. You probably take issue with the interpretation there of and the conclusions but there they are. If you want to debate a premortal existence you are probably better off starting a new thread. Either that or there is a connection on the topic I'm missing.

Edited November 28, 2010 by Dravin

[Dravin]

Shouldn’t the saints be as effective in rebuttal to those who would use the words of Isaiah chapter 14 against the theology of eternal progression by simply pointing out that those words (verses 5-21) are to be applied to the king of Babylon, the tyrants of this world, and not to those who hold the priesthood of Christ in redemption of the truth.

To be able to rebutt effectively one has to first establish the position to begin with. Declaring, "I'm gonna be a God!" sets up false ideas of what that position is. Teaching that we have the potential to become like our Father in heaven and explaining why teaches the doctrine, results in less misunderstandings and results in less people preemptively shutting down because you are able to go line upon line with them and help them see the doctrine instead of what they think it is.

I'm certainly not saying one should avoid the topic or somehow hide it from people. But there are better ways of presenting doctrine, all are not equal. I would think the downsides of, "Every Sunday we engage in symbolic cannibalism. Want to come?" or when talking about Baptism declaring, "We want to symbolically kill you and bury you! Interested?" are obvious.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Dravin

[Bensalem]

Well, I'm not on board with much of what you're saying there, but I am appreciating the way you're saying it.

Would you say that yes, the church urges investigators to attend Gospel Principles class, or no we don't? If we do, then is there not a chapter in that manual on Exhaltation? Does that chapter not make statements like this?

I've taught this lesson to half a dozen investigators over the years. I've been in umpteen conversations with nonmembers over the years about the subject. No, I don't think we hide what's on the menu. Maybe most of us don't proclaim it as loudly or directly as you'd prefer, but I don't buy the old anti-mormon criticism that we sucker people into getting baptized and then they're stuck with the rest of the story after it's too late.

LM

I never said the LDS church is not serving it up; thanks for pointing that out. In my mind they serve as caterers to the wedding feast. My comments have been directed to those who advised constraining the food being offered. It is not a time for timidity.

[Bensalem]

To be able to rebutt effectively one has to first establish the position to begin with. Declaring, "I'm gonna be a God!" sets up false ideas of what that position is. Teaching that we have the potential to become like our Father in heaven and explaining why teaches the doctrine, results in less misunderstandings and results in less people preemptively shutting down because you are able to go line upon line with them and help them see the doctrine instead of what they think it is.

I'm certainly not saying one should avoid the topic or somehow hide it from people. But there are better ways of presenting doctrine, all are not equal. I would think the downsides of, "Every Sunday we engage in symbolic cannibalism. Want to come?" or when talking about Baptism declaring, "We want to symbolically kill you and bury you! Interested?" are obvious.

I don’t think I advocated a declaration as you have presented here. To be clear, I believe the presentation should be based on describing what God and Christ have promised to the saints…no holds barred.

[bert10]

The Names of GOD...include CREATOR and ETERNAL. All those who are Sons of the Father and inherit all things from the Father shall also inherit....the Natures of our Father which includes being a CREATOR and also Being ETERNAL. The Spirit testify that Creation is an Eternal process and that we will participate in all of this as part of the GODHEAD.

When the Apostle Paul said to put on CHRIST. Means to put on the Nature of Christ.....and if we do this...we be Christ. Which mean Enlightened One. [full of light]

bert10

Well then, do you believe we will establish and rule over other planets and repeat the process that was created here on earth?

[rameumptom]

A lot of this issue comes from the concept of creatio ex nihilo, creation from nothing. Traditional Christians believe all things, including man, were created from nothing. They accept the Hellenistic idea that only God is perfect and of a perfect substance, and so all other things are of a different substance than God. Some, such as the Catholics, believe we can obtain the same nature of God, but not the same substance.

LDS believe that all things existed before in some state or another. Before this life, our spirits existed, and before that we existed as intelligence (there are many theories on what intelligence is). We are made of the same substance as God is, and so can become like him not only in nature, but also substance.

What does it mean to be a god? We really don't know. There are a few generalized statements form prophets surmising some of the things we will do. But the specifics are vague. What we do know is we will be like him, and reign with him. Whatever that means.

[Bensalem]

A lot of this issue comes from the concept of creatio ex nihilo, creation from nothing. Traditional Christians believe all things, including man, were created from nothing. They accept the Hellenistic idea that only God is perfect and of a perfect substance, and so all other things are of a different substance than God. Some, such as the Catholics, believe we can obtain the same nature of God, but not the same substance.

LDS believe that all things existed before in some state or another. Before this life, our spirits existed, and before that we existed as intelligence (there are many theories on what intelligence is). We are made of the same substance as God is, and so can become like him not only in nature, but also substance.

What does it mean to be a god? We really don't know. There are a few generalized statements form prophets surmising some of the things we will do. But the specifics are vague. What we do know is we will be like him, and reign with him. Whatever that means.

From above: "...Catholics, believe we can obtain the same nature of God, but not the same substance."

We know that God is Spirit and God is Light; we know that Christ is the resurrection and the Light. His nature and His substance is therefore, Light and Spirit in flesh and bone.

There is no distinction in scripture made between God's nature and His substance. God is God and we become part of Him. God is Priesthood and it is available to us. Priesthood is a group of glorified beings and so God must be a group of glorified beings. Why else would the Hebrews have called Him Elohim, which is the masculine plural name of God.

Edited November 30, 2010 by Dravin
Offending lines removed.

[NeuroTypical]

Hey Ben? Please keep in mind - we don't allow bashing other faiths here, any more than we allow bashing the LDS faith.

[Whynot]

Why are you arguing against a premortal existence and how exactly does that relate to the topic of the thread? At any rate that scripture isn't testifying that man didn't have a premortal existence so I have no clue what you are going on about. It's testifying that Christ is divine and that he has authority above that of John/himself (possibly the priests and rabis in general).

A quick look at the topical guide provides these scriptures: Topical Guide: Man, Antemortal Existence of supporting a belief in a premortal existence. You probably take issue with the interpretation there of and the conclusions but there they are. If you want to debate a premortal existence you are probably better off starting a new thread. Either that or there is a connection on the topic I'm missing.

I gave the most important testimony of John the baptist regarding Jesus Christ. Those were his inspired words, not mine. It relates to the discussion primarily due to the statements of fact that John gave. Jesus said almost the exact same words of Himself in His preaching the gospel of the kingdom - that He alone is from above and also spoke of the 'only God' as singular and that this Person is His Father. It's all inseprably linked together in His imperishable words of eternal life that we are to believe and abide in if we are of Him and in Him, which then links to the truths He testified of in John 14-17 and the logistics of how He fits with the Father, and how we fit with Him, if we are in Him.

The primary way to see who is in Him is to see who is abiding in whatever He taught was true.

I might also add that the passage Jesus quoted to confound the Jews about 'ye are gods', was it said as to declare what they will become if they are worthy? or was it said that this is what they are already?

[Whynot]

Indeed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dravin View Post

Also, simply stated it tends to be misinterpreted by those hearing it. Declare you shall be a God and people don't hear faith in the promise to share in all that the Father has and to be joint heirs with Christ but rather the words of Isaiah 14:13-14.

For whatever reason, the idea of theosis and joint-heirship with Christ, so common throughout early Christian thought and still prevalent in Eastern Orthodox and Catholic thought, has for whatever reason fallen out of vogue with the Protestant world. The layperson may be unaware of it; the theologian may be vaguely aware of it, whether he subscribes to it or not. To speak of it so bluntly then creates serious misunderstandings, made all the more serious by the current state of the discussion, in which evangelical protestants are often eager to tell the LDS Church what it teaches and believes, rather than listening to a serious explanation. Better, perhaps, to let the matter lie, and focus on things which might be less controversial in an ecumenical setting.

If we're quoting Isaiah it would be best to give the whole statement and consider another quote. Rather than isolate 14:13,14, it should be expanded to 14:12-27. There was one in heaven who fell due to pride. Also consider 37:16-20. And 48:11 says God will not give His glory to another. And 45:5 is exclusive. And Isaiah 57 is wonderful beyond words in speaking of the gospel of Jesus Christ and says God made the souls of man (16).

It all fits with the teachings of Jesus in the Bible.

Has anyone here read 'Apollyon Rising 2012'? The ancient Egyptian beliefs about the god they believed started it all is absolutely against the God of the Bible. We have the truth, so there is no need to be deceived. Faith is a choice.

[FunkyTown]

Has anyone here read 'Apollyon Rising 2012'? The ancient Egyptian beliefs about the god they believed started it all is absolutely against the God of the Bible. We have the truth, so there is no need to be deceived. Faith is a choice.

You're right, Whynot. I'm very grateful that God gave us the truth and sent His son. I'm grateful he led me to His church, represented in this day and age by the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I'm glad He opened my eyes and helped me not to be deceived.

Merry Christmas, Whynot.

[Dravin]

I gave the most important testimony of John the baptist regarding Jesus Christ. Those were his inspired words, not mine. It relates to the discussion primarily due to the statements of fact that John gave.

Except it doesn't. Not from an LDS perspective. His statement is not a declaration that there was no antemortal existence of man. Nor is it a statement against Man's potential to become like their Father in Heaven. It'd be like me asking you to justify John 10:16 with your non-belief of the Book of Mormon's account of Christ's visit to the Americas. From your perspective that is not what Christ was talking about when he said those words. Similar thing here.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Dravin

[ryanh]

I don’t think I advocated a declaration as you have presented here. To be clear, I believe the presentation should be based on describing what God and Christ have promised to the saints…no holds barred.

"no holds barred" sounds to me more like cage fighting than love and understanding. Sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ is about love and concern for others, not for the purpose of condemning them.

There is a scriptural basis for avoiding a "no holds barred" approach to sharing doctrine.

Isaih 28

9Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

10For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

1 Corinthians 3

1And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

2I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

Hewbrews 5

12For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

13For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

D&C 19

21And I command you that you preach naught but repentance, and show not these things unto the world until it is wisdom in me.

22For they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore, they must not know these things, lest they perish.

[Bensalem]

"no holds barred" sounds to me more like cage fighting than love and understanding. Sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ is about love and concern for others, not for the purpose of condemning them.

There is a scriptural basis for avoiding a "no holds barred" approach to sharing doctrine.

I've been weaned from the milk and I’ve partaken of the meat of gospel and I wish to share the food of our Lord Jesus Christ with all who will lend an ear.

Scriptures also give plenty of reasons for having no fear or shame in proclaiming the gospel.

[Dravin]

I've been weaned from the milk and I’ve partaken of the meat of gospel and I wish to share the food of our Lord Jesus Christ with all who will lend an ear.

Scriptures also give plenty of reasons for having no fear or shame in proclaiming the gospel.

They also tell us to be bold but not overbearing.

[Bensalem]

They also tell us to be bold but not overbearing.

And you feel I have been overbearing? Please show me where my stating my beliefs has been overbearing. Why are your statements of belief not overbearing?

[Dravin]

And you feel I have been overbearing? Please show me where my stating my beliefs has been overbearing. Why are your statements of belief not overbearing?

I didn't say you were. I am providing the scriptural basis (well one of them) against a "no holds bared" cage match approach to proselyting that Ryanh is speaking against. The fact that you equate "no holds bared" cage match gospel sharing with being fearless and not having shame does suggest you may not make a distinction between being fearless and not being ashamed, and taking a cage match approach.

Though I do find a certain irony in someone who does not state their religious affiliation in their profile (and sidestepped a request for that affiliation in the PEC thread) preaching about being fearless and not ashamed of what they believe.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Dravin

[rameumptom]

I find it humorous when I see someone state they have moved beyond the milk and into the meat. Sadly, however, those who usually tend to state they are eating steaks usually are more into speculation and personal views, rather than the actual doctrine of Christ.

One thing I've learned from decades of study is that I'm still drinking milk. I don't even begin to pretend to understand the phrase, "faith in Christ", and so cannot imagine anyone going beyond that to the "meatier" portions....

[FunkyTown]

I find it humorous when I see someone state they have moved beyond the milk and into the meat. Sadly, however, those who usually tend to state they are eating steaks usually are more into speculation and personal views, rather than the actual doctrine of Christ.

One thing I've learned from decades of study is that I'm still drinking milk. I don't even begin to pretend to understand the phrase, "faith in Christ", and so cannot imagine anyone going beyond that to the "meatier" portions....

The beginning of wisdom is to know you know nothing - Socrates.

That's just the beginning, man! I'm so wise, I know stuff - Me.

[Just_A_Guy]

Cripes. If Rameumptom can't handle the meat, I guess I'm consigned to a diet of gospel vegetarianism for the rest of my mortal probation . . .

[Bensalem]

I didn't say you were. I am providing the scriptural basis (well one of them) against a "no holds bared" cage match approach to proselyting that Ryanh is speaking against. The fact that you equate "no holds bared" cage match gospel sharing with being fearless and not having shame does suggest you may not make a distinction between being fearless and not being ashamed, and taking a cage match approach.

Though I do find a certain irony in someone who does not state their religious affiliation in their profile (and sidestepped a request for that affiliation in the PEC thread) preaching about being fearless and not ashamed of what they believe.

"No holds barred" is a common expression that does not automatically equate to "cage match gospel sharing". The first expression was used by me to describe that I would not hold anything back in discussing the gospel on this forum or in person with individuals. The second expression was used by someone (maybe you) to inflate my first statement into something other than what I meant.

Put simply, I will not dummy up the gospel to the lowest common denominator in order to protect someone’s sensitivities. Christ spoke boldly, the prophets spoke boldly, the apostles spoke boldly, and Joseph Smith spoke boldly. I wish to be more like them.

[Dravin]

The first expression was used by me to describe that I would not hold anything back in discussing the gospel on this forum or in person with individuals. The second expression was used by someone (maybe you) to inflate my first statement into something other than what I meant.

You responded to Ryanh's comments about a cage match approach by saying you have scriptural support for showing no fear and not being ashamed. You should have clarified such was not your position, instead you appeared to be defending it.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Dravin

[Bensalem]

You responded to Ryanh's comments about a cage match approach by saying you have scriptural support for showing no fear and not being ashamed. You should have clarified such was not your position, instead you appeared to be defending it.

Just because I responded to his description of a "cage match" approach does not mean that I act that way. I should have confronted his insertion of those words when he presented them.

If you look at my posts and what I have said I think you will agree that my presentation of the gospel is far from being an all out brawl.

[rameumptom]

Bensalem, I agree you are not doing a cage match brawl. I'll defend you on that issue.

That said, I would also suggest that none of us is as knowledgeable as we think we are. Some people defend territory only to find out that they are standing on the wrong spot. The defense isn't the problem. It is the foundation upon which we build our defense.

The gospel of Christ is a strong foundation. Sadly, all of us have the tendency to mix other things into the cement that make that foundation. We have pet gospel hobbies, or personal interpretations/misinterpretations that we hang onto as if life depended upon it.

We all need to learn to continually separate the doctrine from the dribble, or the true principles from the speculation and personal views.

On a LDS philosophy group I'm in, we are having a discussion with a young college student about God and the Church. He is wanting us to show him why he should continue believing in God and the gospel. We are glad to do so. However, he has placed us in a difficult situation. He will only accept his own interpretation of the gospel as the one we must defend, yet it is one we do not accept. For example, Jesus is cruel and demanding in calling all to repent or suffer even as he has; suggesting an uncaring and unloving God. None of the rest of us interpret D&C 19 in that fashion and have told him so, yet he rejects our statements, because we will not defend his interpretation of the scriptures.

We all must be flexible enough to see that the gospel is not for personal interpretation, at least not in an official way. Each of us can interpret scripture as we see fit, but we need to ensure that what we see as truth may not be the same as what the official Church view is, or that of another member. And this isn't just on a regular member level, either. Ezra Taft Benson and Hugh B. Brown used to disagree a lot concerning politics. Joseph F. Smith and James Talmage disagreed on evolution, science, etc.

We all need to take a step back and review what we think we know, because it may surprise us to realize that we know less than we really do. We also need to look at whether what we believe agrees with the common view, and if not, why? And if so, why?

As I said, I am still on the milk. As far as I can tell, there is no real "meat" in the gospel, just speculations. I can speculate with the best of them, but I diligently work hard to ensure I do not mistaken my speculations with the true milk of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Otherwise, my foundation ends up being a mixture of cement and clay (or iron and clay, if you are into Daniel's interpretations), just awaiting to be knocked down by the true rock.

[RipplecutBuddha]

How do you reply to a person who asks this question of your theology?

Early Catholic thought produced the concept that "we will share in God's nature".

What does LDS scripture add to this concept?

The NT teaches that we become the body of Christ and that Christ is God.

Is this enough to justify the words of your prophet in regards to becoming gods?

David said of our Lord, "Yet you have made (man) little less than a god."

Genesis records, "Let Us make man in Our own image; in the likeness of Ourselves..."

Does LDS theology therefore fulfill God's plan from the beginning? If so, how so?

I answer the question honestly; "I don't know right now, but I hope to be everything God expects me to be."

The fact is that the bible is transparenlty clear on what our future holds for us after this life. If you read all of John 17 it's practically laid out for us.

Add to that the fact that whenever life produces offspring, that offspring has the potential within itself to become as the parent is, then the conclusion is also rather clear.

In conclusion I also like to reference Revelations 3:21 regarding this issue. Hard to get around that verse, especially for us mormons, as Joseph Smith stated that the verse as it stands in the KJV is "an altogether correct translation."