The "Only true and living church" vs "The most correct of any church".

[prisonchaplain]

@Traveler is clear and looks towards logical conclusions. I appreciate the frankness. It's much more useful than the inclination of many (perhaps even me sometimes) to minimize differences. My sense is that if the doctrine of glorification is true then it's a teaching that should be meditated on deeply. I'm not there because I'm not a member and don't have that testimony. However, the belief that we can become as God is, is either a powerful truth or a deal breaker. Perhaps there should be a prayer much like the, "Is the church true" one, asking, "Can I really become as God is?" 

[Vort]

7 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

@Traveler is clear and looks towards logical conclusions. I appreciate the frankness. It's much more useful than the inclination of many (perhaps even me sometimes) to minimize differences. My sense is that if the doctrine of glorification is true then it's a teaching that should be meditated on deeply. I'm not there because I'm not a member and don't have that testimony. However, the belief that we can become as God is, is either a powerful truth or a deal breaker. Perhaps there should be a prayer much like the, "Is the church true" one, asking, "Can I really become as God is?" 

I would suggest that whether one believes that men can or should become as God is is to some extent a sematic matter. I mean, in at least one sense, I think no Bible believer can possibly argue against the idea that we are commanded to become as God is. Matthew 5:48 reads (KJV), "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father who is in heaven is perfect." I do not see how this can possibly be interpreted in any other way except that we are to become perfect as God Himself is perfect. Plain meaning of words and all that.

[Traveler]

9 hours ago, Vort said:

I would suggest that whether one believes that men can or should become as God is is to some extent a sematic matter. I mean, in at least one sense, I think no Bible believer can possibly argue against the idea that we are commanded to become as God is. Matthew 5:48 reads (KJV), "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father who is in heaven is perfect." I do not see how this can possibly be interpreted in any other way except that we are to become perfect as God Himself is perfect. Plain meaning of words and all that.

I could argue that the concept of man becoming divine in the image and likeness (including becoming an heir of all G-d’s glory that Lucifer sought after to become G-d) is the intent of G-d’s plan and His intent for mankind.  For me this goes even beyond scripture into science; that the more we learn about this earth and the universe the more it becomes obvious that the only limitation of man (as a species) – is the limitation (corruption???) we put on ourselves.  At the center of all this is Jesus Christ and the doctrine that he was born of Marry and lived among humanity as one of us.  Or as the couplet – As man is, G-d (Jesus) once was and as G-d (Jesus) now is, man may become.  The proof of this, and the example of this, I believe is Jesus Christ and what he taught both in the words he spoke and the example he set and, in his admonishment to come, follow Him.

It is not for me to convince anyone.  They must find this out for themselves.  In all honesty, I am not so concerned with @prisonchaplain  and many others.  Temples are built and the millennium has a purpose.  I believe in agency and in order for agency to have a purpose, I believe that G-d will ensure that each individual has all the information, knowledge, circumstance, opportunity and understanding necessary (including all the powers of the atonement) to determine their eternal destiny.   I am willing to be of some service as I am able and yet flawed and in need of many things myself – therefore unworthy to judge anyone.  Prisonchaplen has taught me a great many things and I am better for having known and conversed with him.  I fully suspect that he will receive from G-d all that will be offered and given to him.

 

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Certainly, the doctrine that we should be perfect is a corrective to the Prosperity Gospel--the idea that God wants us healthy, wealthy, and wise, today--now. It reminds us that our purpose is to grow in godliness--not to wallow in the squalor (no matter how fancy) of this world. Traditionalists may argue that LDS take the teaching too far, but there is no doubt that we traditionalists have not taken the instruction far enough. 

[mikbone]

Be Ye Therefore Perfect—Eventually

Jeffrey R. Holland

[Carborendum]

14 hours ago, mikbone said:

Be Ye Therefore Perfect—Eventually

Jeffrey R. Holland

I'm kind of saddened by the fact that the "eventually" was even required.  The American vocabulary is disappointing.

The origin of the word "perfect" meant "completed" or literally 

• per = complete
• fect = do/done

So, since we aren't done with this life, and we are not at our final destination, of course we're not completed; of course we're not done.  But our hope is to eventually get there.

[mikbone]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I'm kind of saddened by the fact that the "eventually" was even required.  The American vocabulary is disappointing.

Oh, I loved the talk and the needed instruction to avoid toxic perfection.  

As well as the explanation that we will have a long, long, LONG way to go in the eternities to perfecting ourselves with Jesus help.

[Traveler]

I completely agree with your analytics.   There is a problem because the meaning and use of words evolve and in the mind of most that grow up using the English term perfect think only in the extended meaning of being completely flawless – without any weakness or error, ever – past present or future.  This creates quite a conundrum for many Christians that have English as their first language and only relate to the English translation of the Bible.  Many Christians believe G-d is a being that by definition has never had to deal with personal flaws we mortals experience in our fallen state.  Because we are flawed, have weaknesses and obviously plagued with errors – It is considered blasphemy to think it possible to be perfect, especially as G-d is perfect.  Regardless of if we covenant with G-d or not, or even what is possible for G-d to do concerning us; the meaning of perfect has evolved to such a hard-set meaning, it is just not possible for man to be perfected – ever.  We may be able to repent and be forgiven of our sins – but a perfect being?  That will never happen in the mind of many.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

49 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Oh, I loved the talk and the needed instruction to avoid toxic perfection.  

As well as the explanation that we will have a long, long, LONG way to go in the eternities to perfecting ourselves with Jesus help.

It is my impression that the Christian thought (outside of LSD theology) it is sort of a mathematical thing – like asymptotically approaching perfection.  We can get closer and closer (infinitely close) but never in all eternity actually reaching G-d’s perfection.

 

The Traveler

[mikbone]

36 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It is my impression that the Christian thought (outside of LSD theology) it is sort of a mathematical thing – like asymptotically approaching perfection.  We can get closer and closer (infinitely close) but never in all eternity actually reaching G-d’s perfection.

 

The Traveler

We LDS actually believe the same because God and Jesus are continuing to progress (grow in glory at the very least).  And, we are forever indebted to them.

The best we can hope for is to eventually become a profitable servant.

"As man now is, God once was:

As God now is, man may become."

The Lorenzo Snow couplet is a static not dynamic statement.  We might eventually get to where God is now.  But we will never equal or exceed him.

 

Edited May 2 by mikbone

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

I completely agree with your analytics.   There is a problem because the meaning and use of words evolve.

I agree.  Language does evolve.

But the meaning of perfect to mean "thorough or complete" is still found in dictionaries today (c.f. definition #6).

No one bothers to look.  No one seems to care.

I guess it is too much to ask of someone who is not as much of a logophile as I am.  But it would make longer explanations less frequently required.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

We LDS actually believe the same because God and Jesus are continuing to progress (grow in glory at the very least).  And, we are forever indebted to them.

The best we can hope for is to eventually become a profitable servant.

"As man now is, God once was:

As God now is, man may become."

The Lorenzo Snow couplet is a static not dynamic statement.  We might eventually get to where God is now.  But we will never equal or exceed him.

 

I have decided to give my impression why becoming a g-d is a “Doctrine of Christ”.  In distinguishing this as a doctrine of Christ is rather bold because – by definition those that disbelieve in any of the “Doctrines of Christ” are aligned with the “anti-Christ”.  That is a rather harsh term.

In the 10th chapter of the Gospel of John, Jesus is in Jerusalem for the feast of the dedication.  This is currently what is called Hanukkah, which is the celebration of the rededication of the temple in Jerusalem that was built when the Jews returned following the Babylonian captivity.   Jesus is at Soloman’s porch which is on the east side of the temple (opposite from the west wall where Jews currently come).  It would seem that certain Jews did not like Jesus very much already and they are looking to make an example as to why no one ought to listen to him.  Perhaps they were also looking for a reason to put Jesus to death.  One could ask, for what reason or excuse did the Jews have Jesus crucified.  Jesus is asked to plainly tell everybody at the temple of G-d, if he is the Christ – if he is the Messiah of prophesy that many Jews expected to deliver them from the Romans.  Verse 24:

Quote

24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.

I personally believe that the stage is now set for Jesus to teach directly concerning the doctrines of Christ.  Verse 30 is a direct answer giving a specific point of doctrine of Christ, perhaps not expected by the Jews, as to who and what the Christ is in verse 30:

Quote

30 I and my Father are one.

What could this possibly mean?  Jesus was speaking directly to the Jews, and it ticked them off – so much so they determined to kill Jesus.   The question we need to ask is why did they determine to kill Jesus:  Look at verse 31:

Quote

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

Jesus cautions the Jews to consider why?  What is that they object to?  In verse 32 Jesus teaches directly what Christ would do to demonstrate to the Jews what Christ does.  Verse 32:

Quote

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

A prime reason that the Jews were involved in the crucifixion of Jesus comes out in the next verse and relates directly back to verse 30 for the proof of it.  Verse 33:

Quote

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

What just happened was not just a point of doctrine to the Jews at the time.  This is a critical notion and an important Doctrine of Christ the be recorded and handed down to all generations.  There are two points to this Doctrine.  First that the Messiah (Christ) is a man ordained by G-d and sent to be born such and do marvelous works.  The second Doctrine of Christ is that man can be one with the Father.  This oneness means that man can become a g-d.  Note that Jesus does not tell the Jews that their interpretation of being one with G-d does not make someone a g-d but rather he affirms that is exactly the doctrine.  He then proves the doctrine by quoting Old Testament scripture in verses 34 – 35:

Quote

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;

I cannot say if being "One" with G-d means we are equal or not equal.  Does being one mean being equal?  Is there something more needed to be equal?  I do not know how to answer that.  However, I would say that to be one with G-d is a Doctrine of Christ that the anti-Christ opposed anciently and will continue to do so, especially in the last-days - See John 17:21

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

13 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

But the meaning of perfect to mean "thorough or complete" is still found in dictionaries today (c.f. definition #6).

No one bothers to look.  No one seems to care.

That meaning survives intact and preeminent in linguistics, e.g. "present perfect".

[laronius]

I think part of the issue is that many Christians understanding of the character and nature of God has become corrupted since Jesus walked the earth. Many believe in an unfathomable God, one that can't be comprehended. So when you tell them we can become like Him it makes no sense to them.