Becoming Gods? Mother Goddess?

[Deren]

Yes, the early Christians did draw their belifes from our scriptures, but, there can be different interpretations of scripture.

Yet, when the Mormon is asked what his interpretation is based upon, the usual response is analogous to a warm fuzzy and a real good hunch. There is no allusion to what or why the author wrote what he did as based on an analysis of grammar and history, and this is especially true if the Mormon prophet is demonstrated to be false or a huckster. So, one really has to wonder why any Mormon would bring up "different interpretations" at all, other than muddy waters that he is incapable or unwilling to tread.

And they used a lot more books of scripture to define their belifes then we do.

Which is irrelevent, given that regardless of the number of books, unless one has a relatively clear method as to how those books are going to be interpreted, whatever interpretation that might be derived from them is going to be spurious at best or way off in left field chasing fairies and snorks at worst, much like what Joseph Smith ended up doing.

 

[fatboys]

Yet, when the Mormon is asked what his interpretation is based upon, the usual response is analogous to a warm fuzzy and a real good hunch. There is no allusion to what or why the author wrote what he did as based on an analysis of grammar and history, and this is especially true if the Mormon prophet is demonstrated to be false or a huckster. So, one really has to wonder why any Mormon would bring up "different interpretations" at all, other than muddy waters that he is incapable or unwilling to tread.

Early church fathers gained their belief from the scriptures, but this did not given them anything more than knowledge. To know that something is true, comes fromt he warm fuzzies. Because Deren, you can not explain to me how you know you are more correct in your interpretation than I am. All it is, is your opinion, and nothing more.

Which is irrelevent, given that regardless of the number of books, unless one has a relatively clear method as to how those books are going to be interpreted, whatever interpretation that might be derived from them is going to be spurious at best or way off in left field chasing fairies and snorks at worst, much like what Joseph Smith ended up doing.

No much like you and others have done. You have no basis for your interpretaion. The only correct way to interpret the scriptuers would be a prophet of God.

 

[monk_fish]

Why believe something when there is no "official scripture or doctrine" to support it?

Who makes it official?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

In such discussions, am always left wondering why someone would fall back on logic and reason when it is convenient to defend a point and then punt when the conclusion of such thought leads one to uncomfortable positions that most people do like to defend?

"God knew" us before birth could mean only two or perhaps three things (though two are close enough to not be completely exclusive of each other). Some here conclude without support that it can only mean one thing. It is mentioned here like it is a given that it means we existed before this life. Combine that with a god that is not a creator of man, but just one of many “pro-creators” of men and you have polytheism. But when you ask many holding this belief about many gods they deny polytheism and simply say we do not know. A few will say that just because a direct relationship with only the "pro-creator of this world is relevant to them, that they insist their beliefs are not polytheistic. Don’t know about the rest of you, but it would bug me if my grandchildren totally dissed me. Besides even if they denied my existence, it does not negate it. So with such beliefs we must have many gods.

Infinite regression in creation is illogical, so if these things are as some here say they are so certain about, then their god has a god…(actually a pair) and so on, but logic and reason suggests there would have to be supreme god that started it all. That last god obviously being unique in that he would have to be “outside” of creation and a solo act, which is more in line with Christian beliefs about the One God.


For people seemingly so certain about things like mother gods, becoming gods, many “worlds”…etc, many of the conclusions of those “certainties” certainly seems to allude them.

 

[Theway]

In such discussions, am always left wondering why someone would fall back on logic and reason when it is convenient to defend a point and then punt when the conclusion of such thought leads one to uncomfortable positions that most people do like to defend?

"God knew" us before birth could mean only two or perhaps three things (though two are close enough to not be completely exclusive of each other). Some here conclude without support that it can only mean one thing. It is mentioned here like it is a given that it means we existed before this life. Combine that with a god that is not a creator of man, but just one of many “pro-creators” of men and you have polytheism. But when you ask many holding this belief about many gods they deny polytheism and simply say we do not know. A few will say that just because a direct relationship with only the "pro-creator of this world is relevant to them, that they insist their beliefs are not polytheistic. Don’t know about the rest of you, but it would bug me if my grandchildren totally dissed me. Besides even if they denied my existence, it does not negate it. So with such beliefs we must have many gods.

Infinite regression in creation is illogical, so if these things are as some here say they are so certain about, then their god has a god…(actually a pair) and so on, but logic and reason suggests there would have to be supreme god that started it all. That last god obviously being unique in that he would have to be “outside” of creation and a solo act, which is more in line with Christian beliefs about the One God.


For people seemingly so certain about things like mother gods, becoming gods, many “worlds”…etc, many of the conclusions of those “certainties” certainly seems to allude them.

Infinity or eternity by itself in illogical, and if you try to apply logic to it, it will never work. There are somethings we will never know. I believe we existed before we came here, not only because I believe it was given by God through revelation. But because it makes more sense than a God who through Eternity creates imperfect beings and has always done so and will continue to do so. Why? for what purpose? so he can save us and then we spend the next eons telling God how great he is for doing so. Is God really a perfect God if he is unable to create a perfect man? or can he create us perfect but chooses not to? Is imperfect humans part of his plan? Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it? See what happens when you apply logic to God. My head hurts

 

[unbound]

In such discussions, am always left wondering why someone would fall back on logic and reason when it is convenient to defend a point and then punt when the conclusion of such thought leads one to uncomfortable positions that most people do like to defend?

"God knew" us before birth could mean only two or perhaps three things (though two are close enough to not be completely exclusive of each other). Some here conclude without support that it can only mean one thing. It is mentioned here like it is a given that it means we existed before this life. Combine that with a god that is not a creator of man, but just one of many “pro-creators” of men and you have polytheism. But when you ask many holding this belief about many gods they deny polytheism and simply say we do not know. A few will say that just because a direct relationship with only the "pro-creator of this world is relevant to them, that they insist their beliefs are not polytheistic. Don’t know about the rest of you, but it would bug me if my grandchildren totally dissed me. Besides even if they denied my existence, it does not negate it. So with such beliefs we must have many gods.

Infinite regression in creation is illogical, so if these things are as some here say they are so certain about, then their god has a god…(actually a pair) and so on, but logic and reason suggests there would have to be supreme god that started it all. That last god obviously being unique in that he would have to be “outside” of creation and a solo act, which is more in line with Christian beliefs about the One God.


For people seemingly so certain about things like mother gods, becoming gods, many “worlds”…etc, many of the conclusions of those “certainties” certainly seems to allude them.

The more I ponder Mormonism, the more I see it lines up with Pagan religions.

This whole "Gods without end" thing sure sounds awfully familiar to the "circle of life". Heres some stuff I found on the web describing the symbols. Compare:


Ancient Egyptian Symbols - Egyptian Eye of Horus Symbol

The Ancient Egyptian God Symbol - Eye of Horus. The Egyptian God Horus, represented as the falcon-headed god, was an important god in Egyptian legend. The symbol representing his eye, Eye of Horus, was a powerful Egyptian symbol used to protect from evil. Inside of a yellow pyramid on a black iridescent background.

( The LDS temples have this eye over the altar)


Silver Pentacle

The ancient Wiccan Pagan Symbol of the four elements and the spirit, with the spirit uppermost. Our version of this Pagan symbol of faith is in yellow against a navy blue circle on an antique silver background.

( Plastered all over the top of the Nauvoo temple)


Triple Goddess Symbol Wiccan, Pagan

The Maid, Mother, Crone is an ancient symbol representing the 3 phases of a woman's life. The waxing crescent (from New Moon to Full Moon) is the Maiden stage, young virginal, at the beginning of her life. The full moon represents the Mother aspect during her fruitful years, pregnant with new life. The waning crescent (Full Moon to New Moon) represents the Crone or Wise Woman stage. Although her time on earth is waning, she is full of wisdom to pass on to the next generation. This luminary is our popular "Goddess Symbol". This symbol of the triple goddess is a translucent sparkly white, the opaque background color is an Iridescent Navy Blue.

( Moon phases are on the SLC temple)


Also, there is a place in the temple where a married couple can stand between two mirrors. The mirrors are curved so it the reflections form a circle around the couple. This is more allusion to the "circle of life".

Combine this sort of stuff with Joseph Smiths knowledge and practice of the occult, and you see that Mormonisn is just Paganism with a painted facade.

 

[Swart]

The more I ponder Mormonism, the more I see it lines up with Pagan religions.

<snip tenuous conjecture>

Time for a 'reversal of the invective':

Did you know that the American National Anthem is a drug song?

Oh say can you see - This is an obvious reference to a nickname for cocain - 'C' or 'see'.
By the dawns early light - Morning is when the drug traders come in
What so proudly we hailed - Everyone's happy to see the drugs
At the twilight's last gleaming - nightime's when the drug party begins!
And the rockets red glare etc. - that's the drug experience working
...
that our flag was still there - flying the flag of drug use!

It doesn't matter that Cocaine use was popularised sometime after the American national anthem was produced. Nor that the pentagram wasn't associated with the occult until after 1865 and only popularised in the 19th Century. Nor that the symbols used to adorn the SLC and Nauvoo Temples were copied from the great cathedrals of Europe. Symbols which seem to attract very little attention except when they happen to be used by us. Never mind these were considered architecturally aesthetic and only appear on a small number of temples.

I can also show you how "Puff the magic dragon" is a drug song.

Truth doesn't really matter when mud sticks better.

 

[unbound]

Time for a 'reversal of the invective':

Did you know that the American National Anthem is a drug song?

Oh say can you see - This is an obvious reference to a nickname for cocain - 'C' or 'see'.
By the dawns early light - Morning is when the drug traders come in
What so proudly we hailed - Everyone's happy to see the drugs
At the twilight's last gleaming - nightime's when the drug party begins!
And the rockets red glare etc. - that's the drug experience working
...
that our flag was still there - flying the flag of drug use!

It doesn't matter that Cocaine use was popularised sometime after the American national anthem was produced. Nor that the pentagram wasn't associated with the occult until after 1865 and only popularised in the 19th Century. Nor that the symbols used to adorn the SLC and Nauvoo Temples were copied from the great cathedrals of Europe. Symbols which seem to attract very little attention except when they happen to be used by us. Never mind these were considered architecturally aesthetic and only appear on a small number of temples.

I can also show you how "Puff the magic dragon" is a drug song.

Truth doesn't really matter when mud sticks better.

What is truth and what is mud? Is Quinnes book Mormonism and the Magic World View mud?

I suppose next you will be telling me that JS didnt have a seer stone, didnt have magical parchements, and didnt draw magic circles. And how about the dagger with the jupiter inscription?

A horse is not a deer.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Infinity or eternity by itself in illogical, and if you try to apply logic to it, it will never work. There are somethings we will never know. I believe we existed before we came here, not only because I believe it was given by God through revelation. But because it makes more sense than a God who through Eternity creates imperfect beings and has always done so and will continue to do so. Why? for what purpose? so he can save us and then we spend the next eons telling God how great he is for doing so. Is God really a perfect God if he is unable to create a perfect man? or can he create us perfect but chooses not to? Is imperfect humans part of his plan? Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it? See what happens when you apply logic to God. My head hurts

God did create perfect beings. He also allowed choice, which allowed evil to corrupt perfection.


No Purpose? Thought the Bible makes it pretty clear that everything made and done is for His Glory. Perfect Beings? The Bible is pretty clear that He did create perfect beings and that everything in this world started out in perfection (He said it was all GOOD). To His glory some perfect beings remained perfect, fulfilling the purpose for which they were created. Yes, some rebelled but would an Omnipotent God not have known this would happen, even planned for it and then wouldn't rebellion too then be made to serve His plan and for His Glory? No Plan? Some chose to rebel, but even in rebellionIn the case of men, He allowed (again for His Glory) a means for us to regain the perfection He created mankind in. Why? For His Glory!

My head would hurt too trying see how this does not make sense.


And the heavy rock bit should fool no one and neither should many more just like it. Such questions are amusing to some and apparently shake the faith a few, but that is not a logical argument against anything since it represents an illogical question.

 

[AMMON]

Where do Mormons get that from scripture? Is it backed up by the Bible at all? Also, it is often overlooked that mormons believe in a Goddess. They call her "Mother God". I ask you Mormons, if she was God's wife, then why wasn't she in the Bible? I am also curious to where you get the doctrine of God being a man from the Bible.
Thanks,
Corey

Becoming "Gods" is NOT part of the official canon of LDS doctrine. I wish people would get that through their heads.

 

[skylark1]

Becoming "Gods" is NOT part of the official canon of LDS doctrine. I wish people would get that through their heads.

Ammon what do you believe is meant by the word "gods" in D&C 132? I know that is considered to be official canon.

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.

 

[drstevej]

Becoming "Gods" is NOT part of the official canon of LDS doctrine. I wish people would get that through their heads.

"On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon ; and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become!"

- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, General Conference, October 1994
​

I know... just another LDS prophet yanking our chains.

"That exalted position was made manifest to me at a very early day. I had a direct revelation of this. It was most perfect and complete. If there ever was a thing revealed to man perfectly, clearly, so that there could be no doubt or dubiety, this was revealed to me, and it came in these words: "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be." This may appear to some minds as something very strange and remarkable, but it is in perfect harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ and with His promises."

- Prophet Lorenzo R. Snow, Unchangeable Love of God, Sunday, September 18, 1898.
​

Another LDS prophet whose words shouldn't be taken at face value.

"We remember the numerous scriptures which, concentrated in a single line, were said by a former prophet, Lorenzo Snow: "As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become." This is a power available to us as we reach perfection and receive the experience and power to create, to organize, to control native elements. How limited we are now! We have no power to force the grass to grow, the plants to emerge, the seeds to develop."

- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference, April 1977
​

There ya have it... a triad of LDS prophets.

And then there's Gordon Hinckley...

Question: "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

Hinckley: "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."

- Interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, Time Magazine, Aug 4, 1997
​

The words of your leaders speak for themselves.

 

[Wrigley]

"On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon ; and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become!"

- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, General Conference, October 1994
​

I know... just another LDS prophet yanking our chains.

"That exalted position was made manifest to me at a very early day. I had a direct revelation of this. It was most perfect and complete. If there ever was a thing revealed to man perfectly, clearly, so that there could be no doubt or dubiety, this was revealed to me, and it came in these words: "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be." This may appear to some minds as something very strange and remarkable, but it is in perfect harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ and with His promises."

- Prophet Lorenzo R. Snow, Unchangeable Love of God, Sunday, September 18, 1898.
​

Another LDS prophet whose words shouldn't be taken at face value.

"We remember the numerous scriptures which, concentrated in a single line, were said by a former prophet, Lorenzo Snow: "As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become." This is a power available to us as we reach perfection and receive the experience and power to create, to organize, to control native elements. How limited we are now! We have no power to force the grass to grow, the plants to emerge, the seeds to develop."

- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference, April 1977
​

There ya have it... a triad of LDS prophets.

And then there's Gordon Hinckley...

Question: "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

Hinckley: "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."

- Interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, Time Magazine, Aug 4, 1997
​

The words of your leaders speak for themselves.

Pretty neat contrast in those Hinckley quotes.

 

[drstevej]

Dueling Hinckleys.

 

[Wrigley]

Dueling Hinckleys.

True.

He goes from being stating it as fact to not knowing anything about the teaching. Maybe John Kerry took notes.

 

[drstevej]

I believed the couplet before I didn't know much about the couplet.

 

[Wrigley]

I believed the couplet before I didn't know much about the couplet.

 

[Rescued One]

"On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon ; and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become!"

- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, General Conference, October 1994
​

I know... just another LDS prophet yanking our chains.

"That exalted position was made manifest to me at a very early day. I had a direct revelation of this. It was most perfect and complete. If there ever was a thing revealed to man perfectly, clearly, so that there could be no doubt or dubiety, this was revealed to me, and it came in these words: "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be." This may appear to some minds as something very strange and remarkable, but it is in perfect harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ and with His promises."

- Prophet Lorenzo R. Snow, Unchangeable Love of God, Sunday, September 18, 1898.
​

Another LDS prophet whose words shouldn't be taken at face value.

"We remember the numerous scriptures which, concentrated in a single line, were said by a former prophet, Lorenzo Snow: "As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become." This is a power available to us as we reach perfection and receive the experience and power to create, to organize, to control native elements. How limited we are now! We have no power to force the grass to grow, the plants to emerge, the seeds to develop."

- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference, April 1977
​

There ya have it... a triad of LDS prophets.

And then there's Gordon Hinckley...

Question: "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

Hinckley: "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."

- Interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, Time Magazine, Aug 4, 1997
​

The words of your leaders speak for themselves.

Oh, say what is truth?
Yes, say, what is truth? 'Tis the brightest prize
To which mortals or Gods can aspire;
Go search in the depths where it glittering lies
Or ascend in pursuit to the loftiest skies.
'Tis an aim for the noblest desire.

I reckon Mr. Hinckley speaks with forked tongue. It's called doublespeak.

 

[unbound]

Becoming "Gods" is NOT part of the official canon of LDS doctrine. I wish people would get that through their heads.

I see Ammon has his cloaking device activated.