Is Jesus A Master?

[Annabelli]

During a Sacrament talk, a man spoke saying that Jesus was a Rabbi and Rabbi means master. He went on to explain that the master demands our souls and if we do not follow him, we will burn in hell.

I was surprised and concerned about this talk. I know that Rabbi means teacher but until the 19th century, we referred to teachers as school masters and some private schools still use the term.

I asked a member about this and was told that when they become gods, they will rule over Jesus.

Since this talk, I have overheard people commenting about becoming gods. AND they were not talking about becoming god-like. They were talking about being gods and goddess.

I have checked Christian Religions on the Internet and found similar beliefs.

[Pelagius]

During a Sacrament talk, a man spoke saying that Jesus was a Rabbi and Rabbi means master. He went on to explain that the master demands our souls and if we do not follow him, we will burn in hell.

I was surprised and concerned about this talk. I know that Rabbi means teacher but until the 19th century, we referred to teachers as school masters and some private schools still use the term.

I asked a member about this and was told that when they become gods, they will rule over Jesus.

Since this talk, I have overheard people commenting about becoming gods. AND they were not talking about becoming god-like. They were talking about being gods and goddess.

I have checked Christian Religions on the Internet and found similar beliefs.

Hi there. Are you sure you heard the talk and subsequent discussion clearly? Zero offense intended, mostly it sounds a bit like goble-dee-goop to me. How long have you been familiar with the LDS ?

[CrimsonKairos]

I'm getting cynical after being a moderator on this site...all the posers and fakers and liars and deceivers we get that pretend to be LDS only to spring anti-mormon crap under the guise of genuine curiosity. After deleting so many profiles and banning so many IP addresses...*sigh*...you start to wonder if you can trust anything online.

Anna, I'm not saying you're lying about being LDS.

This thread has me scratching my head though.

You will never find any LDS person who seriously believes that any of us will rule over Jesus...well, you could find someone who believes that, but only in a mental hospital. Where do you go to Church?

[MaidservantX]

You will never hear the phrase "burn in hell" in a Sacrament Meeting talk either; I think that a person who tried to say that would be booted out (haha) -- wha? There are children listening in Sacrament Meeting (ok, ok, so the little kids are NOT listening, lol). Mormons do not burn people in hell, ha ha. That is not how it works.

"Master" is, of course, one of the many names of Jesus Christ as found in the scriptures -- Wonderful, Counselor, Almighty God! on and on.

[Dr T]

Ruling over Jesus? Blasphemy!

[Jason]

Could be one of those branches where the church isn't true?

Annabelli, I've heard just about everything before, but I've never heard any Mormon, of any theological bent, claim that they'd rule over Jesus. I've heard that they'll have to be a Jesus on another earth before becoming a God, but never that they'd be over the Jesus of our world.

[pam]

I agree with everyone. In all my 50 years (oops I mean 29 years) of being a member I've never heard anything of the sort about ruling over Jesus nor the phrase "burn in Hell" in a Sacrament meeting.

[Guest Yediyd]

You are either lieing or you were seriously medicated the day you "heard" this talk!!!!

Nope, sorry!!!!! Didn't happen!!! The speaker would have been booted out of there before he finished his talk!!!!

Sounds like some of the anti retoric I heard growing up in my Baptist church.

I agree with everyone. In all my 50 years (oops I mean 29 years) of being a member I've never heard anything of the sort about ruling over Jesus nor the phrase "burn in Hell" in a Sacrament meeting.

"Burn in Hell" is a phrase I heard alot in my Baptist upbringing...I've NEVER heard it in the LDS church!!!!

[Pelagius]

Could be one of those branches where the church isn't true?

Annabelli, I've heard just about everything before, but I've never heard any Mormon, of any theological bent, claim that they'd rule over Jesus. I've heard that they'll have to be a Jesus on another earth before becoming a God, but never that they'd be over the Jesus of our world.

Thank you Jason. I enjoy your postings. I would like to add that in my 27 years as a mature latter day saint, I have also never known anyone who said they'd have to be a Jesus on another earth. I think that anyone who vocalized that sort of idea at church would get sympathetic eyebrows in response at best. We have a hard enough time defending the "uniqueness" of some of the doctrine we do believe to actually put up with silly things like that.

[Annabelli]

I am very glad that I asked about this. I had some very depressing concerns about this and I am glad that there is a place like LDSTalk where people will help me.

Your responses were the answers that I prayed to hear. Thank You.

[Dr T]

Since this talk, I have overheard people commenting about becoming gods. AND they were not talking about becoming god-like. They were talking about being gods and goddess.

There is the doctrine of Eternal Progression by LDS that say you can become a god. Is that what you are talking about?

[CrimsonKairos]

A brief overview of patristics shows that theosis or deification was taught by many of the ante-Nicene fathers. Doesn't prove the LDS doctrine is true, but its hardly unique or absent from early Christian teachings.

[Guest Yediyd]

A brief overview of patristics shows that theosis or deification was taught by many of the ante-Nicene fathers. Doesn't prove the LDS doctrine is true, but its hardly unique or absent from early Christian teachings.

Huh? Hey CK, can you "dummy" that down for me?

[Jason]

I would like to add that in my 27 years as a mature latter day saint, I have also never known anyone who said they'd have to be a Jesus on another earth. I think that anyone who vocalized that sort of idea at church would get sympathetic eyebrows in response at best.

That wasn't from an LDS Church. A different Mormon denomination teaches that. I didn't make that clear before, so my apologies.

<div class='quotemain'>

A brief overview of patristics shows that theosis or deification was taught by many of the ante-Nicene fathers. Doesn't prove the LDS doctrine is true, but its hardly unique or absent from early Christian teachings.

Huh? Hey CK, can you "dummy" that down for me?

Just to be picky CK, Theosis and the Mormon teaching of Deification are very distinct and quite different.

Theosis is becoming one with God, whereas Deification is becoming a unique God who is of one mind with God.

[CrimsonKairos]

Just to be picky CK, Theosis and the Mormon teaching of Deification are very distinct and quite different.

Theosis is becoming one with God, whereas Deification is becoming a unique God who is of one mind with God.

It is true that patristic "deification" differs from LDS "deification" in terms of eschatological ontology (try saying that five times fast). In other words, since both groups (early Christian Fathers and LDS) approach the Godhead differently in terms of "essence" and the whole Trinity thing, their view of the state of the divinized or deified soul after death and judgment differs in terms of "essence."

The 2nd century Bishop of Lyon, St. Irenaeus, wrote: ""The Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself." (Against Heresies, Book 5, in the Preface)

Similarly, the 4th century Bishop of Alexandria, St. Athanasius, wrote: "Because of the Word in us we are sons and gods." (Orat 3.25; Kelly 378)

St. Athanasius wrote elsewhere: "God became man so that man might become a god." (De Incarnatione or On the Incarnation 54:3)

However, since they also believed that mankind was a creation of God, of a completely different "essence" or type of being, they also taught that this "becoming a god" involved sharing in His knowledge, righteousness and purity, but not literally becoming a being of the same or equal "essence" or type as Him. Since they believed there was only "one God" (i.e. the Trinity), man could not literally become a god like the Father, Son and Holy Spirit because we differ from Him/Them in essence. Instead, they believed that we are united with Christ and share his attributes, not his quality of being or status as God.

LDS don't hold to the Nicene ontology, and hence we believe (according to latter-day revelation) that we may become gods or beings of the same kind as God the Father since we are His spirit children, not beings created from nothing, and hence possess the potential to truly become as He is, though eternally subservient to Him and dependent on Him for our all.

My point was merely that ontology aside, both the ante-Nicene fathers and LDS prophets teach that in some way, man may become a god through Christ's incarnation, life, death and resurrection. What is not mutually understood is whether deification involves merely sharing in God's attributes (knowledge, purity, et al), or involves sharing in His attributes, nature, and abilities.

Most modern [Protestant] Christians would be scandalized and shocked if they learned what the ante-Nicene bishops and church leadership wrote about man's potential destiny to become gods. Well, perhaps the phrase "man might become a god" would scandalize them, though it doesn't quite carry the same meaning as LDS beliefs.

[Jason]

You should change the "most modern Christians" to mean Protestants and ignorant Roman Catholics. Eastern Churches have never ceased teaching Theosis, and educated RCC's know it's been there all along.

[CrimsonKairos]

Good call. Changed it. I had Protestants in mind (the usual objectors to LDS deification doctrine).

[Jason]