Why does Mormonism want to be Associated with Christianity?

[RevelationTestament]

if part of being exalted to godhood is being married in the temple the first exalted man could not have happened before the first mormon temple was built, so who created the earth.

Jesus was sent to the earth as the only begotten Son of the Father. They were YHWH Elohim together, and per Genesis created the earth as Elohim:
"and God [Elohim] said let us make man in our image."
So the short answer is that the Father has and will always be the God of this world as El Elyon, The Most High God, and as Elohim, created this earth through the Son as Elohim. Now God also says in Isaiah and Revelation that this world has an end, and He will create a new heaven and a new earth, and that his one shall not be remembered nor come into mind.

So even as Christ is exalted to His Father's throne to inherit His name as the Eternal Father, those who follow Him are exalted in Him.
Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Beyond this we get into an area in which there are no concrete "pat" scriptural answers at present. The answer is there, but it is spread throughout the word, and takes an understanding of the gospel as a whole.
Many things about the church reflect the order of heaven - in other words temporal things set up in the church teach us of spiritual, heavenly things.
The NT teaches that the church is a bride adorned for her husband - of course this is a spiritual or celestial meaning. The church marries Christ, and in following Him gives Him a kingdom - we become spiritually bonded in eternal life for the eternities. We become "married" to Him in covenant - we serve Him as our Master and yes even as our Father - as He gives us power to become the sons and daughters of God. This is a priesthood marriage - we are "married" in covenant to Christ as our Savior.
Temple sealings follow this vein, and are a fulfillment of the Lord's promise in Isaiah to make a covenant with the Gentiles in their land.
Is. 61:6 But ye shall be named the Priests of the Lord: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.
7 For your shame ye shall have double; and for confusion they shall rejoice in their portion: therefore in their land they shall possess the double: everlasting joy shall be unto them.
8 For I the Lord love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.

How much is temporal and how much is spiritual I cannot say... but our temple sealings do reflect this order of heaven.
Next, I posit it is possible for Christ to have temporally married a woman on a prior earth, and so already fulfilled the temporal aspect of such a covenant.
Acts 13 teaches that He was begotten with regards to resurrection, and that here He was raised again - in the Greek: anistemi(raised) Ieosus (Jesus) anistemi (raised again).
While this is not in the mainstream teaching of the LDS church, I pose it is scriptural.
Hebrews 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
12 For 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.
13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

At the time Christianity became a state sponsored church in the 4rth century it adopted creeds which were mandated by the emperors to be read in the churches. These creeds depart from these first oracles of God, and teach that Christ was begotten before all ages or worlds(Nicene Creed), and in later creeds that He is "eternally begotten" while the Bible teaches that He was begotten in covenant with the Father as His Son "this day" and became the author of our salvation.

Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.


As an aside the Bible does not teach that Christ is "a god." It teaches He is YHWH Elohim with the Father.
Here, it helps to familiarize oneself with a little Hebrew. Elohim is a plural word used of God in Genesis when God(Elohim) said let us make man in our image.
Hebrews quotes Psalms saying God told His Son:
Psalms 45:6
6 Thy throne, O God[Elohim], is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

So Christ does not become "a god" in His own right - He inherits the name of the Father per Isa. 9:6. He inherits His glory Isa 42, and the mountains of His government Isa 65. He doesn't become a "new god" but becomes God with God as He inherits all the Father hath. There is only one Most High God, El Elyon, in this world, and Heavenly Father is that being, and Christ is His only begotten Son sent to the world as the revelation of the Father to the world, and as such is YHWH Elohim with the Father. I believe the Bible also teaches we can be one with Him as Elohim. Elohim is actually the plural of Eloah - not El(plural Elim), and I pose it means something like "family of stone/immovable force."
Revelation 2:17
17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

In short LDS Christians follow Christ as the Way to the holiest of all heb 9:8 - something lost to the church when the creeds were introduced and the leadership entrusted to one of the many bishops in the church - the bishop of Rome.

"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."
Irenaeus

"The Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man may become God."
Clement of Alexandria

"becoming a god is the highest goal of all."
Basil of Caesarea

"For He was made man that we might be made God."
Athanasius of Alexandria

"He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess"
C. S. Lewis

 

[katerinah1947]

Nicene Christians have indicated before that the verses in the Bible that speak of "no other gods" and such, indicate that there are no other gods than the Trinitarian God, period. Never have been, never will be. Is that how you understand the verses?

Hi,
I understand you as being close to the understanding, if I translate your words the way I use and undestand those words.
If I take those words as really meaning what I mean, then you are corect, to the highest degree I can think of.
With my word usage, and my inability to teach others about God from The Bible, and what people have learned from God and from others, while with Jesus, I am telling you outright, that I will not get you to the full understanding of anything, let alone how The Roman Catholic/Protestant types see God. That is for others to do correctly.
I would never us the term Nicene Chrisitians. I would not have used "no other gods" first.

I think (yes I am not totally sure), That Christians see God as Trinitarian, but more to the point, They see God as The One Who shall prove to Be, what He is. He has asked in the old days to be called, The I Am. And He is the only God, that exists, even though others at times in the world are called gods, and maybe even once in the Bible others are called gods.

My own personal view of God is of course very personal, and at times, I totally forget The Father is God, and Jesus is God, and The Holy Spirit is God, and even that Mary is not a god, nor God. Yet, that is in my personal contacts with them, either being taken care of, or taking care of others.

I also experience and experienced Creation as it is called, and totally understand why apart from God, nothing exists. I also understand that nothing exists apart from God that exists, meaning of course that since God is all there is, then everything that exists is from Him and of Him.

I also undestand how Jesus and The Holy Spirit, exist and how God is responsible for them existing, and how They are always a part of God, and how they are separate, but that is how I deal with them in my life. Again, you might either have to keep asking me questions, or to ask an in the Word Christian, like Albion, Ron4shua, TheBarrd, and I think Sunlover1, and I think PromiseOfGrace and others like them to be sure.

LOVE,
...Katherina., .... .

 

[katerinah1947]

Thats simply because back then the words planets and stars were more or less interchangable. It's only in recent times have we make such distinctions relevant. However that being said, the verse never says Kolob is two stellar bodies, nor does it say anybody lives or has lived on it.
I will gladly answer... But first, so we better understand each other.... What makes God, God?

Hi,
To make sure I undestand the Kolob issue, as there should not be any sort of controversy over whether it is a planet or a star in the LDS world, as that was never the point. The point from othes and even Wikipedia on Kolob, is, it is near a central point called essentially, where God resides. It is near.

You say, you want me to better understand me, before you will answer my question. To help you understand me better, you are asking if I can answer your question, and I cannot. I can guess.

Now, I am guessing. You want to tell me what makes God, God. Is that why you did not answer my question, or is there another reason. Please if this is your request, give me now, you understanding of What makes God God.

LOVE,
...Katherina., .... .

 

[TasteForTruth]

The only source that I can access at this time is my copy of Mormon Doctrine.

Kolob means "the first creation." It is the name of the planet "nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God." It is "first in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time. . . . One day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth." (Book of Abraham, pp. 34-35; Abra. 3:3-9.)
Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.428

Well, I did ask for doctrine, not Elder McConkie's opinion. But at least it's good to know where people got the idea that Kolob was a planet.

 

[skylark1]

Well, I did ask for doctrine, not Elder McConkie's opinion. But at least it's good to know where people got the idea that Kolob was a planet.

I thought that people got the idea from the Book Of Abraham.

4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.

5 And the Lord said unto me: The planet which is the lesser light, lesser than that which is to rule the day, even the night, is above or greater than that upon which thou standest in point of reckoning, for it moveth in order more slow; this is in order because it standeth above the earth upon which thou standest, therefore the reckoning of its time is not so many as to its number of days, and of months, and of years.​

And:

16 If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them; therefore Kolob is the greatest of all the Kokaubeam that thou hast seen, because it is nearest unto me.

17 Now, if there be two things, one above the other, and the moon be above the earth, then it may be that a planet or a star may exist above it; and there is nothing that the Lord thy God shall take in his heart to do but what he will do it.​

Maybe instead basing this on Bruce McConkies's opinion, perhaps some LDS interpret this passages to mean that Kolob is a planet?


Here are a few other references to leaders referring to Kolob as a planet.

Brigham Young called it "the planet nearest unto the habitation of the Eternal Father."
source

John Taylor wrote: Thou longed, thou sighed and thou prayed to thy Father in heaven for the time to arrive when thou couldst come to this earth, which had fled and fallen from where it was first organised, near the planet Kolob.
source

There are a few other references listed on Wikipedia. That is where I found these references, but I looked for more of a primary source.

I hope that helps. I've seen LDS get annoyed before when non-LDS spoke of Kolob as a planet. While I think that I can understand why some things that LDS critics say might be annoying to LDS, I'm not sure why LDS take exception to this.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It seems to make more sense if Kolob were to be a planet and not a star. After all, who would really want to dwell eternally in extreme heat and flames of a Lake of Fire?

 

[TheBarrd]

A man cannot be exalted without his wife, nor a woman without her husband.

(staff edit)
So, a man can not be "exalted" without his wife. You told me that before.
So, once he's been "exalted", he is a god, if I understood correctly, who will have his own realm to rule. Does that make Mrs. God also a goddess?
What, other than bearing his spirit children, are her responsibilities in this new realm? Not trying to be flippant here, but this old feminist wants to know. How do the ladies fare in your religion?

Now... on what you believe...
Do you believe that everyone who has ever been born on the earth will be resurrected? Or just some?

Doesn't your Bible say that "every knee will bow"?
Doesn't it tell you that all must face the judgment?
That's what mine says...

When did I say that!? That alone opens up a can of worms, but we'll have to tackle that elsewhere. Just be aware that I find no fault whatever with the Bible.

So, you are saying, then, that the Bible I have has not been corrupted, that nothing has been dropped from the text of it, that God has been capable of preserving it through the centuries? Great!
So, why did the gospel message of the Bible need to be "restored" again?
I think I may have missed that part.

I do understand where you're coming from, and I have not dismissed the verses. I, like you, believe they mean exactly what they say! But I don't believe they say what you believe they do. I do not believe they speak of anything outside of that which pertains to the Father and His children.

Look through those verses again. Do you see anywhere in any of them where God says "as far as pertains to Me and My children"? I don't. You are adding your own spin on what these verses actually say...or rather, LDS spin.
Just for half a second, put down the BoM and all the rest of it, and just consider the verses with no outside input. What they say, and what they mean, is that there are no other Gods except Him. Not anywhere in or outside of this universe. No other gods ruling any other planets, anywhere. No "exalted men" anywhere. No. Other. Gods. Period.
You haven't "dismissed" the verses, exactly...you've just put the LDS spin on them, trying to make them mean something they never meant.

Right. I know what you said. And I agree with it.

Uh uh...no. I know what I said.

Originally Posted by TheBarrd View Post

But there is more to it than that. God states in the Bible that He, and He alone, is the only God that exists. There are no other Gods, anywhere, not anywhere in all of the Universe or beyond.

In other words, there are no "exalted" men, with or without wives, ruling any star, any planet, any speck of dust, any atom, or any part of any atom, anywhere. No. Other. Gods. Period.
If you agree with that, you are saying that there is not, has never been, nor will there ever be a man who is, has been, or will be at some future time, "exalted" to godhood.

The doctrine is found in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants (a compilation of latter-day revelations and other doctrine which are part of the LDS scriptural canon) and the Pearl of Great Price (a compilation containing latter-day revelations/translations, an excerpt of the Church's history and the Church's "Articles of Faith"). It most overtly described in the Doctrine and Covenants. Rather than posting a list of qualifying scriptures, if you took time to read this article, it draws from the most prominent ones. (I try not to send people off to read articles, but that one is so well put together and addresses so directly so many of the issues we're talking about... it's worth it, I think).

I might read your article, if you will consent to read an article that I will post.
Of course, mine will show that the LDS does not teach Christian truth. I promise I wouldn't send you to a site that would be overly offensive to you, although I do assure you, many such sites exist...and I'd bet you already knew that, didn't you?
Darlin', I learned a long time ago that any idiot can put up a web site, and have it say anything he likes. Are you sure you want me to get my information from some site? I have a real, live, warm, intelligent, semi-sane Mormon right here, who can tell me what he thinks I need to know.
I think we both know, though, that the BoM is mostly history, whether true or not, that tells the story of the lost tribes of Israel and their adventures in the New World.
I would have been quite surprised if you had actually posted a verse that promised that God would exalt men to godhood.

Keep in mind, that its appearance in all our standard works primarily stems from the fact that we equate "eternal life" with "exaltation." So references to "eternal life" are references to the greatest gift God has ever offered us—to become like Him.

Eternal life is a gift, that is true. But it isn't godhood.
What was actually promised?

Joh_14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
Joh_14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

For me, to be where He is, is all the exaltation I could ever want, or need, or hope for. I would rather spend eternity at His feet than rule over a planet of my own as a goddess. Being loved by Him is the greater reward.

Not a separate place where you will be god. But a place where He is.

Ha! That's great!

I love it.

 

[TasteForTruth]

I thought that people got the idea from the Book Of Abraham.

4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.

5 And the Lord said unto me: The planet which is the lesser light, lesser than that which is to rule the day, even the night, is above or greater than that upon which thou standest in point of reckoning, for it moveth in order more slow; this is in order because it standeth above the earth upon which thou standest, therefore the reckoning of its time is not so many as to its number of days, and of months, and of years.​

And:

16 If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them; therefore Kolob is the greatest of all the Kokaubeam that thou hast seen, because it is nearest unto me.

17 Now, if there be two things, one above the other, and the moon be above the earth, then it may be that a planet or a star may exist above it; and there is nothing that the Lord thy God shall take in his heart to do but what he will do it.​

Maybe instead basing this on Bruce McConkies's opinion, perhaps some LDS interpret this passages to mean that Kolob is a planet?


Here are a few other references to leaders referring to Kolob as a planet.

Brigham Young called it "the planet nearest unto the habitation of the Eternal Father."
source

John Taylor wrote: Thou longed, thou sighed and thou prayed to thy Father in heaven for the time to arrive when thou couldst come to this earth, which had fled and fallen from where it was first organised, near the planet Kolob.
source

There are a few other references listed on Wikipedia. That is where I found these references, but I looked for more of a primary source.

I hope that helps. I've seen LDS get annoyed before when non-LDS spoke of Kolob as a planet. While I think that I can understand why some things that LDS critics say might be annoying to LDS, I'm not sure why LDS take exception to this.

I don't know, either. It's a small matter, in my view. I was just curious. Personally, until coming to this forum, I'd never heard it called a planet. The Church, to my knowledge, has always recognized it as a star:

Kolob

​

The star nearest the throne of God (Abr. 3:2–3, 9).


The Guide to the Scriptures: Kolob​

 

[drstevej]

It seems to make more sense if Kolob were to be a planet and not a star. After all, who would really want to dwell eternally in extreme heat and flames of a Lake of Fire?

Brigham thought there was life on the Sun.

Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon? When we view its face we may see what is termed “the man in the moon,” and what some philosophers declare are the shadows of mountains. But these sayings are very vague, and amount to nothing; and when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows. So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain.

Brigham Young - Mormon prophet
Journal of Discourses 13:271

 

[RevelationTestament]

I thought that people got the idea from the Book Of Abraham.

4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.

5 And the Lord said unto me: The planet which is the lesser light, lesser than that which is to rule the day, even the night, is above or greater than that upon which thou standest in point of reckoning, for it moveth in order more slow; this is in order because it standeth above the earth upon which thou standest, therefore the reckoning of its time is not so many as to its number of days, and of months, and of years.​

And:

16 If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them; therefore Kolob is the greatest of all the Kokaubeam that thou hast seen, because it is nearest unto me.

17 Now, if there be two things, one above the other, and the moon be above the earth, then it may be that a planet or a star may exist above it; and there is nothing that the Lord thy God shall take in his heart to do but what he will do it.​

Maybe instead basing this on Bruce McConkies's opinion, perhaps some LDS interpret this passages to mean that Kolob is a planet?


Here are a few other references to leaders referring to Kolob as a planet.

Brigham Young called it "the planet nearest unto the habitation of the Eternal Father."
source

John Taylor wrote: Thou longed, thou sighed and thou prayed to thy Father in heaven for the time to arrive when thou couldst come to this earth, which had fled and fallen from where it was first organised, near the planet Kolob.
source

There are a few other references listed on Wikipedia. That is where I found these references, but I looked for more of a primary source.

I hope that helps. I've seen LDS get annoyed before when non-LDS spoke of Kolob as a planet. While I think that I can understand why some things that LDS critics say might be annoying to LDS, I'm not sure why LDS take exception to this.

Perhaps some did call it a planet but as I read Abraham 3 it seems to call it a star:
2 And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it;

3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.

So nowhere does it say God lives on Kolob or that it is a planet. That has to be inferred. Nevertheless, what it is really talking about is brightness I think - like our moon rules the night while the sun rules the day.

 

[drstevej]

Maybe a kokaubeam.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Brigham thought there was life on the Sun.

Brigham Young - Mormon prophet
Journal of Discourses 13:271

Goodness me. Not another one of his rambling opinions! Well, I suppose we can all be glad that virtually nothing of what he actually said is LDS doctrine and virtually nothing of what he actually said is believed today.

 

[skylark1]

Perhaps some did call it a planet but as I read Abraham 3 it seems to call it a star:
2 And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it;

3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.

So nowhere does it say God lives on Kolob or that it is a planet. That has to be inferred. Nevertheless, what it is really talking about is brightness I think - like our moon rules the night while the sun rules the day.

Thanks for the response. If I only looked at the verses that you posted, I would agree, but if I look at verses 5 and 17 it seems like it could be interpreted either way. When verse 4 mentions "times and seasons in the revolutions thereof," that also sounds like it is speaking of a a planet.

I agree that it doesn't say that God lives on a planet named Kolob. Maybe what LSD object to the most about this is when non-LDS or LDS critics bring up Kolob. That and when non-LDS or LDS critics bring up the idea of men getting their own planet (which I do not think that your scripture says)?

Your interpretation is interesting because it reminds me of the Shekinah* glory when God inhabited the temple in the Old Testament.



*The word Shekinah isn't in the Bible. It is a Jewish term used to describe God's glory.

Easton's Bible Dictionary:

Shekinah – a Chaldee word meaning resting-place, not found in Scripture, but used by the later Jews to designate the visible symbol of God's presence in the Tabernacle, and afterwards in Solomon's temple. When the Lord led Israel out of Egypt, he went before them "in a pillar of a cloud." This was the symbol of his presence with his people. God also spoke to Moses through the 'Shekinah' out of a burning bush. For references made to it during the wilderness wanderings, see Exodus 14:20; 40:34-38; Leviticus 9:23, 24; Numbers 14:10; 16:19, 42. It is probable that after the entrance into Canaan this glory-cloud settled in the tabernacle upon the ark of the covenant in the most holy place. We have, however, no special reference to it till the consecration of the temple by Solomon, when it filled the whole house with its glory, so that the priests could not stand to minister (1 Kings 8:10–13; 2 Chr. 5:13, 14; 7:1–3). Probably it remained in the first temple in the holy of holies as the symbol of Jehovah’s presence so long as that temple stood. It afterwards disappeared.

 

[TasteForTruth]

As someone else has said, talking to you guys is like trying to climb jello.

I try to answer things directly. Sometimes people embed false assumptions into their questions, which makes it difficult to give a simple response. I'm not saying that applies here, but only that it's not always so easy to just say "yes" or "no."

So, a man can not be "exalted" without his wife. You told me that before.
So, once he's been "exalted", he is a god, if I understood correctly, who will have his own realm to rule. Does that make Mrs. God also a goddess?

Yes.

What, other than bearing his spirit children, are her responsibilities in this new realm? Not trying to be flippant here, but this old feminist wants to know. How do the ladies fare in your religion?

In exaltation, my wife and I will be equal, as we are now. Neither greater than the other. We are one. That won't ever change. And right now, my wife's role in our marriage and family goes far beyond bearing children, which itself is not "her responsibility," apart from the obvious things there that are literally impossible for me to do. There is no part of our life that doesn't burden us both. Again, I never expect this to change.

Doesn't your Bible say that "every knee will bow"?
Doesn't it tell you that all must face the judgment?
That's what mine says...

Yes, my Bible says those things, but that doesn't answer my question. I'm not up to anything here... sincerely want to know what you believe. Not all traditional Christians believe the same thing about the resurrection.

So, you are saying, then, that the Bible I have has not been corrupted, that nothing has been dropped from the text of it, that God has been capable of preserving it through the centuries? Great!

Now now... answering for me is having a discussion with yourself. Let me speak for myself!

My statement did not attempt to assess God's ability to preserve the Bible (or, rather, the various writings that were compiled into the Bible). Clearly He is capable.

Neither did my statement say that the Bible has not suffered "corruption" in one degree or another over the centuries. I believe it has.

What I said is that I don't find fault with it. And I don't. Another poster on CF once asked me to list all the things that were wrong with the Bible. I had nothing to offer. I don't read the Bible to find what's wrong with it or missing from it. I don't go through it, cataloging errors. I read it because it is the word of God and will help me draw closer to Him, at a minimum. That is how I read all the scriptures.

So, why did the gospel message of the Bible need to be "restored" again?
I think I may have missed that part.

Because what constitutes "the Gospel"—which exceeds written words—was lost to the world. And man had no power to restore it unto himself.

Look through those verses again. Do you see anywhere in any of them where God says "as far as pertains to Me and My children"? I don't. You are adding your own spin on what these verses actually say...or rather, LDS spin.

Has man claimed to know—at any time in history—even one god other than 1) the true God, or 2) those gods man has created for himself?

Just for half a second, put down the BoM and all the rest of it, and just consider the verses with no outside input. What they say, and what they mean, is that there are no other Gods except Him. Not anywhere in or outside of this universe. No other gods ruling any other planets, anywhere. No "exalted men" anywhere. No. Other. Gods. Period.
You haven't "dismissed" the verses, exactly...you've just put the LDS spin on them, trying to make them mean something they never meant.

To the extent that my faculties allow, I cannot discern any context in all of scripture but what pertains directly to God and His creation. So I have to disagree that we are "spinning" anything.

Uh uh...no. I know what I said.

Originally Posted by TheBarrd View Post


In other words, there are no "exalted" men, with or without wives, ruling any star, any planet, any speck of dust, any atom, or any part of any atom, anywhere. No. Other. Gods. Period.
If you agree with that, you are saying that there is not, has never been, nor will there ever be a man who is, has been, or will be at some future time, "exalted" to godhood.

Fair enough. As it appears that we are walking the fine line of arguing Bible interpretations here, which I've found to typically be unproductive, I suggest that we agree to disagree on what the Bible verses mean which use the "no other gods" language.

That aside, for future consideration, I feel that spamming a list of 20 verses (or verse fragments) and lumping them all together with one purported meaning... that seems very sloppy to me. I know it wasn't your list, but I'm just saying. Context is important. If we're going to analyze verses of scriptures, we ought to be more careful about it.

I might read your article, if you will consent to read an article that I will post. Of course, mine will show that the LDS does not teach Christian truth. I promise I wouldn't send you to a site that would be overly offensive to you, although I do assure you, many such sites exist...and I'd bet you already knew that, didn't you?

Yes, I know of such sites! But, on the article... I'm not suggesting you read the article I linked because it will show you you're wrong, but because it is such a good exposition of the topic we've been discussing, and because it draws from so many of the scriptures about which you asked. If your article is to persuade me that I'm wrong, I'll thankfully decline. If that means you won't/can't read my article, then I'll be obliged to do my own homework, I guess, and list the scriptures you asked about. Just remember that I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong. That's not why I linked the article.

Darlin', I learned a long time ago that any idiot can put up a web site, and have it say anything he likes. Are you sure you want me to get my information from some site? I have a real, live, warm, intelligent, semi-sane Mormon right here, who can tell me what he thinks I need to know.

It's up to you. But be aware that I will (probably) never send you to any site but an official LDS church site, which I consider to be a cut above "some site," where LDS doctrine is concerned. But I do understand the bit about talking to living people. I'm just trying to avoid re-creating the wheel here. That's all.

I think we both know, though, that the BoM is mostly history, whether true or not, that tells the story of the lost tribes of Israel and their adventures in the New World.
I would have been quite surprised if you had actually posted a verse that promised that God would exalt men to godhood.

From the Book of Mormon? As I said, the doctrine is most clearly detailed in the Doctrine and Covenants. But pick any verse you like about eternal life, anywhere in the LDS canon, and you've got one. More below...

Eternal life is a gift, that is true. But it isn't godhood.
What was actually promised?

Here you go: D&C 76:50-70

Joh_14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
Joh_14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

For me, to be where He is, is all the exaltation I could ever want, or need, or hope for. I would rather spend eternity at His feet than rule over a planet of my own as a goddess. Being loved by Him is the greater reward.

Not a separate place where you will be god. But a place where He is.

And there is nothing wrong with feeling as you do. Nor is there anything wrong with me accepting an offer from God for something greater. I don't assume it. I accept it. Or, I don't have to accept it. The Restored Gospel makes clear (to those who believe it) that God ultimately gives to each one of us what we desire.

 

[TheBarrd]

Maybe a kokaubeam.

I thought kokaubeam was a drink...

Okay, I'll behave...what is a kokaubeam? Honestly, it does sound like a drink, doesn't it?

 

[Theway]

if part of being exalted to godhood is being married in the temple the first exalted man could not have happened before the first mormon temple was built, so who created the earth.

Being married in a temple is not a requirement of salvation, neither is being married as a Mormon.
Being married for time and eternity is.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Being married in a temple is not a requirement of salvation, neither is being married as a Mormon.
Being married for time and eternity is.

How does that work - being married for time and eternity - if they are not married as mormons or in a temple? Most Christian wedding vows, and maybe even non-Christian and non-religious vows, have a form of "till death do us part".

 

[Theway]

How does that work - being married for time and eternity - if they are not married as mormons or in a temple? Most Christian wedding vows, and maybe even non-Christian and non-religious vows, have a form of "till death do us part".

It is the requirement that it be done in a temple, only for those living in the past 150 years or so, certainly not during Adam and Eve's time... Also the work being done for the dead right now does not require that they be Mormon, so the requirement that they be Mormon is incorrect also.

You've been buying in to too many AntiMormon scenarios.

 

[drstevej]

only for those living in the past 150 years or so

Doesn't sound like a restored gospel.

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,
So no matter what you believe of the LDS theology, how in any way, can you expect a person like me, to be able to handle such a disruptive idea, being compatible with my religion.
If it is believed, that my religion is a con, as someone said, then is your goal mereley to show how you are actually better Christians, that normal Chrisitans? Is it that we are all conned, and what you have is better Christianity, than what Christian now practice?
As far as the Bible goes to you guys, how are you going to handle that to Christians who belive it is not wrong?
I will give you time off on me, for now. I don't know how to give you time off on the Biblical Proof, nor all the revealings God did to me, further proving that the Book called the Old Testament and the book called The New Testament are Real, in that It, Is persoanlly true, where It says it is True, and Is personally false, where it says it is false.
I will leave off here. So, Biblically if God is as I have seen, and if God is One, like the Bible says, and I have seen and dealt with, how are you going to make Chrisitanity better and more accurate with that piece of irrevokable information from God Himself?
LOVE,
...Katherina., .... .