God has a wife in heaven???

[Vort]

Disputing #1 being a nasty sin.. personal revelation != private revelation. Much like sacred != secret in regards to the Temples. It can be spoken of in the right locations and around the correct people. Unless I was fed faulty info

Any revelation that gives new and as-yet-unrevealed information is strictly private and not to be shared publicly, unless the recipient holds the keys to receiving such revelation for the world. See Alma 12:9 ("And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.") and Joseph Smith's famous remark that "I can keep a secret till doomsday."

[bmy-]

Would you say that this would apply if talking to a member who had not yet attended the temple? Or how about to a non member as long as it is presented in the correct way?

Outside of the 'sensitive' topics -- yes. I see no harm in telling them what each ceremony consists of, etc. Those are to be considered 'sacred' but not secret. Even most of the information in there.. is just that.. information. A good example I think would be how the temple creation story differs from the story in our physical scriptures.

[bmy-]

Any revelation that gives new and as-yet-unrevealed information is strictly private and not to be shared publicly, unless the recipient holds the keys to receiving such revelation for the world. See Alma 12:9 ("And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.") and Joseph Smith's famous remark that "I can keep a secret till doomsday."

I stand corrected. Appreciate it Vort.. perhaps that's why God hasn't let me in on any juicy secrets yet,

EDIT: I deleted the original post to fix the mistake.

[Hemidakota]

I suspect Rameumptom was simply being charitable. Since the things you said are not publicly revealed truths, there are only three possibilities:

• They are privately revealed truths.
• They are lies.
• They are speculation.

If #1 is true, that means you are guilty of a particularly nasty sin: That of revealing private revelation, thus proving yourself to be unreliable and unworthy of further revelations of the Spirit. If #2 is true, that means you are a liar. I'm guessing that Ram simply assumed the best of you and opted for #3.

Nice try Vort...let you know; I was being charitable with my response since this is a major problem in the church with limited ourselves in receiving the greater word. Now you can see why Joseph hands were tied in not able to teach more. No different in our own days with your own response.

If one follows GOD's will and the prophets, you should already know this and if the church as a whole was mature enough, this would be doctrine during Joseph Smith time.

[Hemidakota]

I stand corrected. Appreciate it Vort.. perhaps that's why God hasn't let me in on any juicy secrets yet,

EDIT: I deleted the original post to fix the mistake.

Let us examine what was given, whether it was given out of content or not being given in its entirety:

9. And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10. And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

11. And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell

What was Alma teaching in verse 9? This reference is to the resurrection of the dead, the inseparable union of body and spirit. Look at the previous verses to see the full meaning. What is a mystery to one man may not be a mystery to another; it is simply a matter of preparation, readiness, and receptivity. To the world and the worldly the doctrines of faith, repentance, and rebirth are mysteries. To the recent convert the doctrine of atonement may be a mystery. To the experienced and seasoned Saint the matter of a plurality of gods and of man becoming as God may be mysteries. To the people of Zarahemla the noble King Benjamin said: "I have not commanded you to come up hither to trifle with the words which I shall speak, but that you should hearken unto me, and open your ears that ye may hear, and your hearts that ye may understand, and your minds that the mysteries of God may be unfolded to your view'" (Mosiah 2:9). Benjamin then went on to speak of divine indebtedness, of putting off the natural man through the atonement of Christ, and of serving one another as a means of retaining a remission of sins from day to day. These are saved and solemn matters, to be sure. They are mysteries to the world and to those who live outside the realm of the divine influence.

In verse 10, to those who cry out, "I have enough"; those who refuse to learn more; those who are content to exist at their present level of light and truth, who say essentially, "Thus far and no further"-these shall live and die in ignorance of the mysteries of God and shall thereby subject themselves to the chains of hell. God is gracious: He provides for us that which we are willing-and thus able-to receive. I am not only talking about those outside of the gospel but them that are members of this same gospel.

When we speak on a subject of mysteries, this to me is not a mystery at all which was posted but there are subjects which cannot be expressed here and not allowed by the Spirit at all.

[rameumptom]

As far as secret in regards to the temple...what is your interpretation of the right locations and the right people?

I think if it is clearly taught in scripture, then it can be discussed. For example, we can discuss sacrifice and chastity as contained in the scriptures. But the portions which are not found in scripture should remain secret and sacred.

[Hemidakota]

In the other forum someone said that there is a mother who is married to God the father-wife.They have spirit children.What is the name of the mother and wife of God the Father??? The difference between LDS and NON_lds is the nature of God.In LDS,God the Father is flesh and bones.Non -Lds,God the father is a spirit-Trinity. Did Joseph Smith say that God was a man-mortal first who become a God??? Both LDS and non-LDS believe Mary was born a virgin.

Getting back to the topic discussion, some relative information found concerning Heavenly Mother - Encyclopedia of Mormonism 4 vols. by Daniel H. Ludlow

Mother in Heaven

Latter-day Saints infer from authoritative sources of scripture and modern prophecy that there is a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rejects the idea found in some religions that the spirits or souls of individual human beings are created ex nihilo. Rather it accepts literally the vital scriptural teaching as worded by Paul: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." This and other scriptures underscore not only spiritual sibling relationships but heirship with God, and a destiny of joint heirship with Christ (Rom. 8:16-18; cf. Mal. 2:10).

Latter-day Saints believe that all the people of earth who lived or will live are actual spiritual offspring of God the Eternal Father (Num. 16:22; Heb. 12:9). In this perspective, parenthood requires both father and mother, whether for the creation of spirits in the premortal life or of physical tabernacles on earth. A Heavenly Mother shares parenthood with the Heavenly Father. This concept leads Latter-day Saints to believe that she is like him in glory, perfection, compassion, wisdom, and holiness.

Elohim, the name-title for God, suggests the plural of the Caananite El or the Hebrew Eloah. It is used in various Hebrew combinations to describe the highest God. It is the majestic title of the ultimate deity. Genesis 1:27 reads, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them" (emphasis added), which may be read to mean that "God" is plural.

For Latter-day Saints, the concept of eternal family is more than a firm belief; it governs their way of life. It is the eternal plan of life, stretching from life before through life beyond mortality.

As early as 1839 the Prophet Joseph Smith taught the concept of an eternal mother, as reported in several accounts from that period. Out of his teaching came a hymn that Latter-day Saints learn, sing, quote, and cherish, "O My Father," by Eliza R. Snow. President Wilford Woodruff called it a revelation (Woodruff, p. 62).

In the heav'ns are parents single?

No, the thought makes reason stare!

Truth is reason; truth eternal

Tells me I've a mother there.

When I leave this frail existence,

When I lay this mortal by,

Father, Mother, may I meet you

In your royal courts on high? [Hymn no. 292]

In 1909 the First Presidency, under Joseph F. Smith, issued a statement on the origin of man that teaches that "man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father," as an "offspring of celestial parentage," and further teaches that "all men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity" (Smith, pp. 199-205).

Belief that there is a Mother in Heaven who is a partner with God in creation and procreation is not the same as the heavy emphasis on Mariology in the Roman tradition.

Today the belief in a living Mother in Heaven is implicit in Latter-day Saint thought. Though the scriptures contain only hints, statements from presidents of the church over the years indicate that human beings have a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father.

Bibliography

Wilcox, Linda P. "The Mormon Concept of a Mother in Heaven." In Sisters in Spirit, ed. Maureen U. Beecher and Lavina F. Anderson. Urbana, Ill., 1987.

Woodruff, Wilford. The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, ed. G. Homer Durham. Salt Lake City, 1968. ELAINE ANDERSON CANNON

[Hemidakota]

With 2900 plus hits on phrase 'Heavenly Mother' on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - selected only handful for your reading -

"One Thing Needful": Becoming Women of Greater Faith in Christ

in Patricia T. Holland, Ensign, 1987, Oct.

... my first priority, so I had tried to be a full-time mother to a grade-schooler, a high-schooler, and a son preparing for his ... in maternal modesty, of the restrained, queenly elegance of our Heavenly Mother, and knowing how profoundly our mortal mothers ...

The True Way of Life and Salvation

in Spencer W. Kimball, Ensign, 1978, May

... he gave them liberty to fully express themselves as mothers, as nurses to the sick, as proponents of high community ideals, and... in maternal modesty, of the restrained, queenly elegance of our Heavenly Mother, and knowing how profoundly our mortal mothers ...

Comment

in , Ensign, 1973, July

...think that you are feeling some of what our heavenly mother may have felt as she...opportunity to further prepare the children of our Heavenly parents. Then, as our eternal successes...your children praise their earthly mother and father also, forever.” Mrs....

The Women of God

in Neal A. Maxwell, Ensign, 1978, May

...only with a great father but also with a superb mother, Lucy Mack, who influenced a whole dispensation. When we ... a regal homecoming be possible without the anticipatory arrangements of a Heavenly Mother? Meanwhile, there are no separate paths back ...

The Lord as a Role Model for Men and Women

in Ida Smith, Ensign, 1980, Aug.

... fathers—and I would add—because of their mothers as well. The people cried “blasphemy” when the Prophet declared ..., but married; that there is a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother; and that we were made in their image: male and female children.

A Sure Trumpet Sound: Quotations from President Lee

in , Ensign, 1974, Feb.

... our children. We forget that we have a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother who are even more concerned, probably, than ... human beings, all of whom, of course, are the children of our Heavenly Father. Purposes of the Temples When you enter a holy ...

A Champion of Youth

in Vaughn J. Featherstone, Ensign, 1987, Nov.

... my sister’s, but my mother made me wear them.” Some ... knowledge brings the fulness of accountability. Our Heavenly Father is far more merciful, infinitely ... role, and the traits they received from heavenly mother are equally as important as those given ...

A Time for Hope

in Ardeth G. Kapp, Ensign, 1986, Nov.

... friends. Sometimes I feel terribly lonely. I know Heavenly Father is aware of my problems, but I ...to go. I finally realized that my Father in Heaven is on my side, even though I have betrayed...go up and give Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother a big hug and ...

[rameumptom]

I have to agree with Vort. God is the one that determines when doctrine is public, not us. If I receive a personal revelation, it is just that, personal.

Example: Lorenzo Snow received personal revelation: "As God once was, man now is. As God is, man may become." When he passed it by Brigham Young (President of the 12), Brother Brigham told him that it sounded correct, but for him to keep it private, until Joseph publicly taught it.

I do not promote my personal revelations as public doctrine. Because it isn't. In the case of the world, it is speculation that I am sharing, not doctrine, because it is not binding on anyone but myself.

We do not know if the revelations an individual receives are from God or not. This is why we continually see the commandment to keep personal revelations to ourselves. And even if the revelation were from God, how do we know if the individual understands the revelation as he/she should? In the vision of the Tree of Life, Nephi saw that the river was filthy, but Lehi didn't notice - how do we know what things we may miss? Or what if we interpret it differently than another person would on a similar revelation? Or what if God reveals something one person is ready to receive, but gives a higher truth to the next person? Who do we listen to?

For this reason, it may be personal revelation to the individual, but it is speculation for all the rest of us.

[Soninme]

I have to agree with Vort. God is the one that determines when doctrine is public, not us. If I receive a personal revelation, it is just that, personal.

Example: Lorenzo Snow received personal revelation: "As God once was, man now is. As God is, man may become." When he passed it by Brigham Young (President of the 12), Brother Brigham told him that it sounded correct, but for him to keep it private, until Joseph publicly taught it.

I do not promote my personal revelations as public doctrine. Because it isn't. In the case of the world, it is speculation that I am sharing, not doctrine, because it is not binding on anyone but myself.

We do not know if the revelations an individual receives are from God or not. This is why we continually see the commandment to keep personal revelations to ourselves. And even if the revelation were from God, how do we know if the individual understands the revelation as he/she should? In the vision of the Tree of Life, Nephi saw that the river was filthy, but Lehi didn't notice - how do we know what things we may miss? Or what if we interpret it differently than another person would on a similar revelation? Or what if God reveals something one person is ready to receive, but gives a higher truth to the next person? Who do we listen to?

For this reason, it may be personal revelation to the individual, but it is speculation for all the rest of us.

Hello,

I am new to this forum and have found this thread informative. I am not a LDS but a Bible (only) believer (protestant).

In regards to the teaching of your prophet that "As God once was, man now is. As God is, man may become." I understand the Bible is one of your holy books and in Isaiah 43:10 God says "Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me. Also Isa.44:6 "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: 'I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.

7.And who can proclaim as I do? Then let him declare it and set it in order for Me, Since I appointed the ancient people. And the things that are coming and shall come, Let them show these to them.

8.Do not fear, nor be afraid; Have I not told you from that time, and declared it? You are My witnesses. Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one "

Also Isaiah 45:5 I am the Lord, and there is no other; There is no God besides Me. I will gird you, though you have not known Me,

6.That they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting That there is none besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other;

Also Isa.45:14 "There is no other God", verse 18 "there is no other", verse 21"And there is no other God besides Me, a just God and a Savior; there is none besides Me.

I could go on and on.

I do not see the Bible teaching man to God, quite the opposite instead.

Psalm 90:2 Even from everlasting to everlasting Thou art God.

Thanks

[rameumptom]

Hello,

I am new to this forum and have found this thread informative. I am not a LDS but a Bible (only) believer (protestant).

In regards to the teaching of your prophet that "As God once was, man now is. As God is, man may become." I understand the Bible is one of your holy books and in Isaiah 43:10 God says "Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me. Also Isa.44:6 "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: 'I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.

7.And who can proclaim as I do? Then let him declare it and set it in order for Me, Since I appointed the ancient people. And the things that are coming and shall come, Let them show these to them.

8.Do not fear, nor be afraid; Have I not told you from that time, and declared it? You are My witnesses. Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one "

Also Isaiah 45:5 I am the Lord, and there is no other; There is no God besides Me. I will gird you, though you have not known Me,

6.That they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting That there is none besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other;

Also Isa.45:14 "There is no other God", verse 18 "there is no other", verse 21"And there is no other God besides Me, a just God and a Savior; there is none besides Me.

I could go on and on.

I do not see the Bible teaching man to God, quite the opposite instead.

Psalm 90:2 Even from everlasting to everlasting Thou art God.

Thanks

Context is critical in understanding Isaiah and the Old Testament. In ancient times, the Jews believed in a Divine Council of gods. They were headed up by El Elyon/Elohim. Elohim had several divine sons. To train them up as gods, he divided up the earth and gave each one a kingdom. Jehovah was given the prize, Israel.

Many of these sons of god challenged one another for primacy and to try to overtake the other's kingdom. We see where Satan (Adversary) and others sons of God went to challenge Jehovah for Israel in Job 1.

In Isaiah's day, the god of the Canaanites, Yam, was replaced by Baal. What Jehovah was telling Israel when he said this:

"Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me.

is this: Israel, I am your God. I have always been your God since the beginning. I will not be replaced, like Yam, nor will I be a replacement god, like Baal.

Beside Jehovah, there was no other God in Israel. However, other nations DID have Gods sharing power.

This ancient belief of a divine council was largely ended by the Deuteronomist reformers in King Josiah's day. They removed the concept of a divine council from the temple worship and from daily life. At one point, Jehovah had a wife, Asherah or Wisdom. The Deuteronomists removed her from temple worship when they removed Aaron's rod (which symbolized the Tree of Life/Asherah).

I highly recommend the writings of Margaret Barker, an OT scholar and Methodist pastor ( margaretbarker.com ), and also William G. Dever's book, Did God Have A Wife?

[rameumptom]

Also, the Bible is filled with teachings of Theosis - man becoming divine.

In Romans 8, we read:

16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. 17Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

If Christ is God, and he is, and we share in his glory as co-heirs, then are we not also gods? LDS believe that we may become subordinate gods to the Father and Christ. They share their glory and power with the faithful, making them gods, also.

Jeff Lindsay, in his Mormanity blog, provides a large list of Bible quotes that show theosis in action.

Also read the comments. You'll see LDS showing evidence that it is correct, and anti-LDS attempting to say that Mormons are heretics that don't believe the Bible - even though Jeff shows theosis in both the Bible and early Christian writers.

Even St Augustine noted that "God became man, so that man may become god." While the Early Christian Fathers probably did not see it quite like Mormons do, it wasn't too far off from what the LDS teach.

[Soninme]

Context is critical in understanding Isaiah and the Old Testament. In ancient times, the Jews believed in a Divine Council of gods. They were headed up by El Elyon/Elohim. Elohim had several divine sons. To train them up as gods, he divided up the earth and gave each one a kingdom. Jehovah was given the prize, Israel.

Many of these sons of god challenged one another for primacy and to try to overtake the other's kingdom. We see where Satan (Adversary) and others sons of God went to challenge Jehovah for Israel in Job 1.

Respectfully, where do I start? This is foreign to the Bible as Jews are strict monotheists.

Elohim, is a name for the Almighty triune God. (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) Please provide a Biblical reference that "Elohim had several divine sons" as Jesus is the only begotten (unique) son of God. John 3:16.

The Bible speaks of Baal, Dagon, Ashtoreth and many others clearly as false gods (idols) with NO power.

Read 1Corinthians 10:19-20.

This ancient belief of a divine council was largely ended by the Deuteronomist reformers in King Josiah's day. They removed the concept of a divine council from the temple worship and from daily life. At one point, Jehovah had a wife, Asherah or Wisdom. The Deuteronomists removed her from temple worship when they removed Aaron's rod (which symbolized the Tree of Life/Asherah).

Bible reference please.

[rameumptom]

Modern Jews are strict monotheists. But anciently, they were panentheists. They believed in many gods, but worshiped only Jehovah.

Not all the information about ancient Israel is found in the Bible. Archaeology has produced many pieces of information that helps us to more clearly understand the Bible in its original context. Too many people read the Bible from a modern point of view, but do not really understand the original context. Also, not all modern Bible translations clearly denote these things. That is where Bible scholars and archaeologists can help us.

Job 1 is a clear example of the sons of El (God) going to challenge Jehovah.

Here are some links to help you:

Heavenly Divine Council - Here a little, there a little - Spirit Realm

The Divine Council

http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/monotheism/council.pdf

[Soninme]

Modern Jews are strict monotheists. But anciently, they were panentheists. They believed in many gods, but worshiped only Jehovah.

Not all the information about ancient Israel is found in the Bible. Archaeology has produced many pieces of information that helps us to more clearly understand the Bible in its original context. Too many people read the Bible from a modern point of view, but do not really understand the original context. Also, not all modern Bible translations clearly denote these things. That is where Bible scholars and archaeologists can help us.

Job 1 is a clear example of the sons of El (God) going to challenge Jehovah.

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.

Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.

Respectfully, seems quite a leap from "present themseleves" to "going to challenge".

Sons of God must refer to angelic beings since Jesus is the only begotten Son. John 1:14

The Bible never records any of the great men of faith ever believing that they would be gods some day. On the contrary we read of Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Satan and others who believed they were or could become gods and we see their end. Isaiah 43:10 still stands. Thanks

[Soninme]

Also, the Bible is filled with teachings of Theosis - man becoming divine.

In Romans 8, we read:Quote:

16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. 17Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

If Christ is God, and he is, and we share in his glory as co-heirs, then are we not also gods? LDS believe that we may become subordinate gods to the Father and Christ. They share their glory and power with the faithful, making them gods, also.

The King James Version reads differently

Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God , and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together . This glory that we humans will share is NOT the glory that the Father and Son share. Isaiah 48:11 For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted ? and I will not give my glory unto another.

Also Romans 8:15 tells us we are sons by adoption not nature. 15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

[rameumptom]

The King James Version reads differently

Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God , and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together . This glory that we humans will share is NOT the glory that the Father and Son share. Isaiah 48:11 For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted ? and I will not give my glory unto another.

Also Romans 8:15 tells us we are sons by adoption not nature. 15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

You are entirely missing the point. All of these, and more, show that man receives a form of theosis. Now, if you wish to disagree on exactly what that means, be my guest.

In Revelation 3, we read that those who overcome will sit on Christ's throne with him, just as he sits on the Father's throne. Later, we are told in Revelation that the righteous will reign with him. In the KJV, Rev 1:5-6 tells us that Christ "hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father...."

What do kings do? They reign. In the ancient world, there were sovereign kings and vassal kings. The vassal kings were subordinate to the sovereign king, yet they still ruled and reigned. This is what LDS believe we will do under God and Christ, as we sit on Christ's throne.

And when we are all "glorified together", as it states in Romans 8, that "together" includes Jesus Christ. We are to be glorified together with Christ. And if Christ is glorified as God (or a God), then we will receive the same inheritance.

As for Paul and the adoption, I agree we are spiritually adopted in. We must accept Christ in order to become sons of God, it is not an automatic thing. We are not born to be exalted. We are called to be exalted, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? Because they do not accept the fullness of Christ's reward. They are satisfied to be under Jesus as his servant. And that is the reward they shall receive, if that is what they so choose. But the scripture clearly teaches of a theosis of some kind, and the early Church Fathers also stated it, as I've quoted before.

Isaiah 48 is talking about God not giving his glory to another god. God gives glory on HIS terms, not on another's terms. As St Augustine noted: "God became man, so that man may become god." Jesus became man, so as to show us how we can also receive of God's glory. Or do you suggest we interpret Isaiah 48:11 as you do, and reject dozens of other scriptures throughout the Bible? Do we not get to sit on Christ's throne, even as he sits on the Father's? Do we not get to be joint heirs with Christ? Are we to suppose that when the scriptures promise us great rewards for believing in Christ, that he was just joking? If God gives us even a small portion of his blessings, are we not receiving some of his glory? Yet, if God cannot give his glory to another, how can we then receive it?

I would suggest you do some studying, because the eisegesis you are using would make large portions of the Bible false.

[rameumptom]

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.

Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.

Respectfully, seems quite a leap from "present themseleves" to "going to challenge".

Sons of God must refer to angelic beings since Jesus is the only begotten Son. John 1:14

The Bible never records any of the great men of faith ever believing that they would be gods some day. On the contrary we read of Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Satan and others who believed they were or could become gods and we see their end. Isaiah 43:10 still stands. Thanks

Once again, your eisegesis is weak. The Bible scholars pretty much all agree that the "sons of God" referenced here are from the divine council. Why? Because in the Hebrew, they are bene e'lim, sons of God the Father, not Jehovah. Margaret Barker notes the difference in her book, the Great Angel. Sons of El are divine heavenly beings, while sons of Jehovah are mortals.

The problem with Satan, Pharaoh, and Nebuchadnezzar is that they sought to become gods on their own terms. Note what God states regarding Adam:

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil (Genesis 3:22).

Clearly, if Adam had become as God and Jesus (us), then they had obtained attributes of God.

Margaret Barker and others explain how many precious things have been taken from the Old Testament by the Deuteronomist reformers of King Josiah's day. They removed many things from the temple, including the worship of God's wife, Asherah, and the Tree of Life imagery (which represented her). They removed the early panentheistic model of Israel, and replaced it with a strict monotheism. And they removed many teachings which were originally there about man's relationship with deity.

Margaret Barker explains that one of the key things the mortal Jesus restored to earth were the things lost from the first temple, including man's relationship with God. We could become gods, divine sons of God, through a spiritual adoption. Just like Jesus, Paul, John and others in the Bible teach us.

2 Peter 1 explains it perfectly:

According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: 4Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Here Peter states we do receive God's glory, godliness. And he states we become partaker of the "divine nature." What is the divine nature, but to be as God is?

[Soninme]

In Isaiah's day, the god of the Canaanites, Yam, was replaced by Baal. What Jehovah was telling Israel when he said this:

Quote:

"Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me.

is this: Israel, I am your God. I have always been your God since the beginning. I will not be replaced, like Yam, nor will I be a replacement god, like Baal.

Beside Jehovah, there was no other God in Israel. However, other nations DID have Gods sharing power.

No nations existed before God.(Gen. 1:2)

He is the Creator of all things.(Gen.1:1. John 1:3)

Yam and Baal and Dagon and other nations gods really aren't conscious beings, they are just names given to idols made of wood or stone. Psalms 115:3 Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him.

4.But their idols are silver and gold, made by the hands of men.

5.They have mouths, but cannot speak, eyes, but they cannot see;

6.they have ears, but cannot hear, noses, but they cannot smell;

7.they have hands, but cannot feel, feet, but they cannot walk; nor can they utter a sound with their throats.

8.Those who make them will be like them, and so will all who trust in them.

These idols (false gods) have no power

God makes it very clear "Before Me there was no God formed, (made) nor shall there be after Me. Gods aren't made, real ones anyway. God doesn't have a beginning or an end. Psalms 90:2 Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

[Soninme]

You are entirely missing the point. All of these, and more, show that man receives a form of theosis. Now, if you wish to disagree on exactly what that means, be my guest.

In Revelation 3, we read that those who overcome will sit on Christ's throne with him, just as he sits on the Father's throne. Later, we are told in Revelation that the righteous will reign with him. In the KJV, Rev 1:5-6 tells us that Christ "hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father...."

What do kings do? They reign. In the ancient world, there were sovereign kings and vassal kings. The vassal kings were subordinate to the sovereign king, yet they still ruled and reigned. This is what LDS believe we will do under God and Christ, as we sit on Christ's throne.

I agree we will reign with Him as kings and priests sitting on thrones. Rev.4:4

And when we are all "glorified together", as it states in Romans 8, that "together" includes Jesus Christ. We are to be glorified together with Christ. And if Christ is glorified as God (or a God), then we will receive the same inheritance.

Christ is not glorified as God, meaning to become God, if that is what you imply, He has always been God. John 1:1 Christ has a glorified body, we will receive a glorified body and eternal life with Him. That is our inheritance.

As for Paul and the adoption, I agree we are spiritually adopted in. We must accept Christ in order to become sons of God, it is not an automatic thing. We are not born to be exalted. We are called to be exalted, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? Because they do not accept the fullness of Christ's reward. They are satisfied to be under Jesus as his servant. And that is the reward they shall receive, if that is what they so choose. But the scripture clearly teaches of a theosis of some kind, and the early Church Fathers also stated it, as I've quoted before.

Isaiah 48 is talking about God not giving his glory to another god. God gives glory on HIS terms, not on another's terms. As St Augustine noted: "God became man, so that man may become god." Jesus became man, so as to show us how we can also receive of God's glory.

Only God is God. only He is worthy of worship. Rev 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying: "Blessing and honor and glory and power Be to Him who sits on the throne, And to the Lamb, forever and ever!"

As for Augustine, if he denied the Nicene creed, which is in oppossition to "God became man, so that man may become god" then he wouldn't have been sainted by the Catholic church would he?

Or do you suggest we interpret Isaiah 48:11 as you do, and reject dozens of other scriptures throughout the Bible? Do we not get to sit on Christ's throne, even as he sits on the Father's? Do we not get to be joint heirs with Christ? Are we to suppose that when the scriptures promise us great rewards for believing in Christ, that he was just joking? If God gives us even a small portion of his blessings, are we not receiving some of his glory? Yet, if God cannot give his glory to another, how can we then receive it?

I would suggest you do some studying, because the eisegesis you are using would make large portions of the Bible false.

Yes we rule and reign with Christ.

Yes we are joint heirs.

No He wasn't joking.

We receive God's blessings, not His glory.

Yes God does not give His glory to another and no we cannot receive it.

Please bear with me regarding the quotations as I am still figureing this out. Thanks

Edited February 10, 2010 by Soninme

[Blackmarch]

In the other forum someone said that there is a mother who is married to God the father-wife.They have spirit children.What is the name of the mother and wife of God the Father??? The difference between LDS and NON_lds is the nature of God.In LDS,God the Father is flesh and bones.Non -Lds,God the father is a spirit-Trinity. Did Joseph Smith say that God was a man-motral first who become a God??? Both LDS and non-LDS believe Mary was born a virgin.

There is no scripture that says God has a wife... However him having a wife would seem very logical considering we're made in his image, but God decided to make male and female seperate, and also considering how important families are in his plan.

As for him having a body and etc.. I like the scripture where CHrist says he does all he's seen his father do.

[JohnOF123]

There is no scripture that says God has a wife... However him having a wife would seem very logical considering we're made in his image, but God decided to make male and female seperate, and also considering how important families are in his plan.

As for him having a body and etc.. I like the scripture where CHrist says he does all he's seen his father do.

When God told us that we need to "conform to the image" of Jesus Christ, and when Jesus said that God is spirit and must be worshiped in spirit... wouldn't it be more logical to conclude that we are made in the image of God by having "moral character", emotions, ability to use logic. We were created a thinking, loving being as God is, but not necessarily looking like Him. That seems more Biblical to me. What do you guys think?

[bytor2112]

When God told us that we need to "conform to the image" of Jesus Christ, and when Jesus said that God is spirit and must be worshiped in spirit... wouldn't it be more logical to conclude that we are made in the image of God by having "moral character", emotions, ability to use logic. We were created a thinking, loving being as God is, but not necessarily looking like Him. That seems more Biblical to me. What do you guys think?

But, as Latter Day Saints, we believe that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ and through revelation and an open canon we know that he has a glorified body of flesh and bone.

[JohnOF123]

But, as Latter Day Saints, we believe that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ and through revelation and an open canon we know that he has a glorified body of flesh and bone.

I see what you're saying. I'm just trying to be as scriptural as possible here.

I think what you are saying is that God has flesh (organic body) and bones (calcium based framework). This sounds foreign to me. So try to understand my thought process here and help me out.

(#1) I understand that the Bible says that God is spirit John 4:24.

And (#2) in Luke 24:39 Jesus says that a spirit does not have flesh and bones.

Now we do not know what a spirit is, but we do know what it is not.

Adding to that, we know that God is everywhere at all times. A body would mean that He is material (matter), etc. Now time is a function of the existence of matter. Since God is outside of time, eternal, He could not be "material". Therefore, He cannot have a body because he could not be omnipresent. This logic seems both plausible and Biblical to me.

I'm not trying to prove anything new, I'm just pointing this out and illustrating it in terms we can understand.

Could you possibly illustrate similarly how God "could" have flesh and bones Biblically and logically as seen above. I'm really just trying to understand all this and so far can only see the one side of the coin.

[bmy-]

I see what you're saying. I'm just trying to be as scriptural as possible here.

I think what you are saying is that God has flesh (organic body) and bones (calcium based framework). This sounds foreign to me. So try to understand my thought process here and help me out.

(#1) I understand that the Bible says that God is spirit John 4:24.

And (#2) in Luke 24:39 Jesus says that a spirit does not have flesh and bones.

Now we do not know what a spirit is, but we do know what it is not.

What was Jesus, then? Was he not flesh and bone.. and not God also in mainstream Christian theology? Why then did Christs physical body ascend with him into Heaven?

Adding to that, we know that God is everywhere at all times. A body would mean that He is material (matter), etc. Now time is a function of the existence of matter. Since God is outside of time, eternal, He could not be "material". Therefore, He cannot have a body because he could not be omnipresent. This logic seems both plausible and Biblical to me.

We believe that all spirit is matter. A common example.. have you ever played a game like the Sims or Spore? I'm in charge of that world.. I know (or can know) everything that is going on in it. Heck, I created it.

Could you possibly illustrate similarly how God "could" have flesh and bones Biblically and logically as seen above. I'm really just trying to understand all this and so far can only see the one side of the coin.

Well, Christ Himself ascended into Heaven with a physical body and was seated at the right hand of his Father. That just shows that a God can inhabit a physical body, unless you believe there is some extraction process for the spirit to be removed.