LDS teachings on God

[Rescued One]

CFR.

D&C 132: 20
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.

What blessings await those who live worthy of exaltation? (Godhood, having all things subject to them, having angels subject to them, having all power, living with Jesus.) Point out that just as Jesus Christ was promised all that the Father has, we can also receive all power and dominion, becoming creators of other spirits and other worlds.
Young Women Manual 2, (1993), Lesson 29: Exaltation, p.110

I am speaking about your claim below:

...Our critics would have people believe that it is the LDS focus on becoming gods, but that is not true...

 

[Ran77]

D&C 132: 20
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.

What blessings await those who live worthy of exaltation? (Godhood, having all things subject to them, having angels subject to them, having all power, living with Jesus.) Point out that just as Jesus Christ was promised all that the Father has, we can also receive all power and dominion, becoming creators of other spirits and other worlds.
Young Women Manual 2, (1993), Lesson 29: Exaltation, p.110

I am speaking about your claim below:

A couple of references to a topic does not mean that the LDS focus on it. If we didn't have anything discussing the topic you would claim that we were hiding something from the members. If we mention it, then it somehow becomes a focus of the LDS thoughts. Either way our critics will find a way to criticize it.

Can you actually prove that this is the focus of LDS?

 

[Moodshadow]

I didn't claim that it was. In fact, it isn't the point I was making at all.
Well, then, my bad. Could you please explain the difference, since it is a crucial point in your theology?

I'm not interested. I get that way when rude posts are sent my way.

This is baffling. To point out that your idea seemed to differ from that of your church authorities was somehow rude, or to ask for an explanation for that was rude, or to ask again when the original request was ignored was rude...which? I have made a deliberate effort not to employ rude language, so I truly do not understand and would appreciate some elucidation. It is not my intent to offend but only to settle the doctrinal questions and to get a sense for what has caused your offense, for which I apologize.

 

[Ran77]

This is baffling. To point out that your idea seemed to differ from that of your church authorities was somehow rude, or to ask for an explanation for that was rude, or to ask again when the original request was ignored was rude...which? I have made a deliberate effort not to employ rude language, so I truly do not understand and would appreciate some elucidation. It is not my intent to offend but only to settle the doctrinal questions and to get a sense for what has caused your offense, for which I apologize.

Having something pointed out doesn't bother me. It's the unnecessary comments that I get tired of dealing with. Like:

"And who better than an authority on Mormonism like you, right?"

"Since it's "basic Bible stuff," it shouldn't be too difficult for you."


:o

 

[Moodshadow]

Having something pointed out doesn't bother me. It's the unnecessary comments that I get tired of dealing with. Like:

"And who better than an authority on Mormonism like you, right?" And yet, when I made that comment (in post 331), your response was, "Correct." - with a thumbs-up smiley. Was that not an indication that you agreed with me about your being an authority on Mormonism? If not, did it mean something else? And if it did mean something else, why then would you go ahead and respond to [some] of the issues I had brought up that you thought needed your correction? You see? You were giving totally mixed messages there.

"Since it's "basic Bible stuff," it shouldn't be too difficult for you." :o

My dear Sir, that phrase, "basic Bible stuff," was a direct quote from your own post. And since you believed it basic and it was in the Bible, why would it be anything other than easy for you to substantiate, and why would you take issue/offense at my comment to that effect? It was not at all meant to be offensive but only confirming what seemed to be the idea you were endorsing that "basic Bible stuff" is common and not that difficult.

Once again, I apologize for my choice of phraseology, with which you obviously took offense. It would be lovely if we could soften our hearts, here, and just converse like adults and not take offense at what is not at all intended to be offensive. And though I've never been a fan of oh-so-politically-correct verbal tiptoeing, I will try to choose my words more carefully.

And with all of the above in mind, I would be exceedingly grateful if/when you extend the courtesy of completing your corrections with responses to the issues you left unanswered, and thank you.

 

[TheBarrd]

It seems to me that, if you are going to get involved in debates about your religion on the internet, it would be a very good idea to have a bit of a tougher hide. People do disagree...and yes, people do get frustrated, and even angry. And sometimes things get said that shouldn't. It happens.
It doesn't just happen to LDS...I'd say the biggest "target" for such insults would be the RCC...and hey, Mormons...you've tossed your share of stones at the RCC in these threads, don't think it hasn't been noticed. You know, they still think that they are the original church...and CF rules say that they have as much right to the title "Christian" as any other group that claims that title for themselves. Thus, you may not "flame" them.
From my experience, I'd say that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are generally more tolerant of such things than I see Mormons being. I think it has to do with how far you are along on your walk with Jesus. He seems to think that we ought to love our enemies. If they are throwing insults your way, try tossing flowers back. After all, our Lord did tell us to love our enemies...perhaps, since we all claim to be following Him, we ought to try it His way for a bit.
Just a suggestion....

 

[Ran77]

My dear Sir, that phrase, "basic Bible stuff," was a direct quote from your own post. And since you believed it basic and it was in the Bible, why would it be anything other than easy for you to substantiate, and why would you take issue/offense at my comment to that effect? It was not at all meant to be offensive but only confirming what seemed to be the idea you were endorsing that "basic Bible stuff" is common and not that difficult.

Once again, I apologize for my choice of phraseology, with which you obviously took offense. It would be lovely if we could soften our hearts, here, and just converse like adults and not take offense at what is not at all intended to be offensive. And though I've never been a fan of oh-so-politically-correct verbal tiptoeing, I will try to choose my words more carefully.

And with all of the above in mind, I would be exceedingly grateful if/when you extend the courtesy of completing your corrections with responses to the issues you left unanswered, and thank you.

Allow me to make a suggestion. If the comment doesn't have anything to do with the topic just leave it out. I can guarantee that if you, or anyone else, does that there will be no instances where your comments could be seen as offensive. For instance, several things came to mind as I read the apologies in your quote, but none of them will help a discussion along or shed light on this topic so I am leaving them out.

I will take another look at your comments/questions.

 

[Ran77]

D&C 76:95. "And he makes them equal in power, and in might, and in dominion. "Equal" is not exactly the same thing as "like."

What you have indicated is that the LDS seek power. There are many ways we can want to be like a person/God and not be interested in power. This is a tactic our critics use to put the LDS in a negative light. Traditionally, there is an unfavorable pall cast on power seekers. When add in dominion and might into the mix you are definitely sending a message about the LDS that is not true.

I have never heard an LDS give a talk about how they want to be as powerful as God. However, nearly every Sunday I have heard some mention of how we strive to be like our God and our Savior. That includes being charitable, kind, forgiving, humble, helpful, and loving. We want to be like God in those ways. The goal for all the LDS I know is to one day be perfect in these things.

I suspect that we will be given stewardship of some kind in the next life. I don't know what that will actually entail. However, I can't see that it will be much different from the stewardships we have now. And the people I know do not fulfill those stewardships to gain power, dominion, or might. They fulfill those stewardships to please Heavenly Father and to help people.

 

[Ran77]

Wrong. LDS believe that Jesus was God from the beginning. Both Jesus and the Holy Ghost were God before they gained a physical body.

We were not speaking of members of the LDS godhead; we were speaking of potential gods, not those who already qualify. And when you say "they" - plural - that actually includes the Holy Ghost? Does Mormonism now teach that he had a physical body?

The topic was supposed requirements for godhood, with the focus on humans. The fact that Jesus and the Holy Ghost were God before gaining a body demonstrates that that is not a requirement. Any attempt to claim that gaining a body is part of the qualification process is simply incorrect.

Jesus and the Holy Ghost are known to have been God before gaining a physical body. I am not stating that the Holy Ghost has a physical body at this time. The emphasis of my statement is on being God and not having a physical body.

 

[Ran77]

Partially wrong. Those who would be like God must obey His commandments. That does not directly translate into accepting teachings. Your statement also focuses on the LDS church, but really what the LDS are talking about is God's church as it has been throughout the earthly existence of man.

If a potential god (as opposed to "those who would be like God") does not accept the tenets of the LDS church, then it follows that he probably would not necessarily obey His commandments (according to Mormonism), does it not? And it follows that in his failure to obey all the commandments, he would not then qualify to become a god? And yes, I'm focusing on the LDS church here because the whole topic here is becoming gods - which is a belief that is very peculiar to Mormonism and to this conversation, and therefore it is necessary to discuss the steps as required by the tenets of Mormonism. As for "God's church as it has been through out the earthly existence of man," only Mormonism teaches that Mormonism fits that description.

I stated that it did not directly translate into accepting teachings. Your comments fall well within that parameter. Yes, it follows that those who do not accept the tenets would not likely obey the commandments. And it's that "follows" you mentioned that places it into the indirect category.

Revelation Testament and Early Christian Researcher have both posted sources which demonstrate that the LDS are not the only group to teach the doctrine that man may become a god. So you are incorrect this is not a belief that is very peculiar to the LDS.

You are right. Only Mormonism teaches that Mormonism fits the description of God's church, which has existed since the beginning of time. I'm pretty sure that the Catholic church teaches that the Catholic church fits the description of God's church, which has existed since the beginning of time. Same for Protestant, Lutheran, and a host of other denominations. Your statement of itself is correct. However, it loses any sense of significance when compared to the view that all of the other churches have of themselves.


:o

 

[Ran77]

Wrong. LDS leaders have indicated that no blessing will be denied worthy individuals who were unable to marry during their lifetime. No matter how much our critics want to twist this around, what you suggest is not the case.

You are correct that LDS leaders have said this. But what you neglected to mention is that these worthy individuals who were unable to marry during this lifetime absolutely cannot enter the highest degree of the celestial kingdom unless and until they have been sealed by proper priesthood authority to an equally worthy companion. That ordinance can be performed by proxy after the individual's mortality has expired, but it must be performed at some time, period. There will be no unmarried gods, period, according to Mormonism.

I didn't neglect to mention anything. Revelation has told us that those worthy individuals will not have any blessing withheld. It has not indicated how that will happen. What you have offered is speculation.

When will a person be considered a god? At the resurrection? Only once any necessary arrangements have been made? Millions of years from now after a long process of growing? We don't know and neither do you.


:o

 

[skylark1]

Revelation Testament and Early Christian Researcher have both posted sources which demonstrate that the LDS are not the only group to teach the doctrine that man may become a god. So you are incorrect this is not a belief that is very peculiar to the LDS.

Many of the posts that I read of ECR did not contain links to quotes so that they could be read in context. I recall reading here not very long ago complaints from LDS that non-LDS posted quotes out of context. IIRC, some of those contained links so that the statement could be read in context.

I searched several thread looking for where Revelation Testament and Early Christian Researcher have both posted sources which demonstrate that the LDS are not the only group to teach the doctrine that man may become a god, and cic not see any direct quotes that show this. Could you please provide a link where they have presumably demonstrated this?

Thanks.

 

[TheBarrd]

Originally Posted by Ran77

Revelation Testament and Early Christian Researcher have both posted sources which demonstrate that the LDS are not the only group to teach the doctrine that man may become a god. So you are incorrect this is not a belief that is very peculiar to the LDS.

I think you might have missed something that I posted to you earlier....

The goal of mainstream Christianity, of course, is to be "conformed to Christ"...which is, in a sense, becoming more like God.
And the eventual result of this is to become "one" with the Father and the Son, just as they are "one" with each other. It is to become a part of the God-family.

The problem is that LDS do not see things quite the same way. To begin with, you have that doctrine that god was once a man who was born on another planet.
Christianity believes that God is an entirely different order of Being, Who existed before there were other planets to be born on. We believe that God created the cosmos "ex nihilio"...while LDS believe that god simple "rearranged" pre existing matter, which, fortunately, also contained intelligence.
But that isn't the worst of it.
You believe that each new "god" has the power to "exalt" ever more new "gods"...and each new "god" goes off and "creates" (rearranges) his own little "kingdom".
This is completely opposite of what Christianity teaches, which is that we will all be a part of the One "God-Family"....not separate "little g" gods, all alone in our little "kingdoms"....a HUGE difference.

So, no....the problem is not that you want to become like God. I can't understand why being a part of the "Big-G God" isn't good enough for you.
Too bad...because, really and truly, it is the only option. There really aren't any "little g" gods.


All of this goes back, of course, to wondering why, after all this time, LDS suddenly want to be a part of mainstream Christianity?
Most of us would never have known an awful lot about these radically different and, to our way of thinking, weird beliefs, if you guys had been content to leave your stones in your hats, instead of flinging them all over the internet.

Could it have something to do with the election coming up soon???
Because, while I still thought the notion that LDS believed that god was a man born on another world was just a rude rumor, I might have voted for someone like Romney.
After the last month or so of learning what LDS actually do believe...not a chance...
Too weird for me!!

 

[Moodshadow]

I didn't neglect to mention anything. Revelation has told us that those worthy individuals will not have any blessing withheld. It has not indicated how that will happen. What you have offered is speculation.

When will a person be considered a god? At the resurrection? Only once any necessary arrangements have been made? Millions of years from now after a long process of growing? We don't know and neither do you. :o

Since no part of that particular comment mentioned how or when any person would enter into godhood - only that in Mormonism no unmarried person could do so - I would be very grateful if you could point to the exact comment or part where the speculation took place, and thank you.

 

[Ran77]

Since no part of that particular comment mentioned how or when any person would enter into godhood - only that in Mormonism no unmarried person could do so - I would be very grateful if you could point to the exact comment or part where the speculation took place, and thank you.

That ordinance can be performed by proxy after the individual's mortality has expired, but it must be performed at some time, period. There will be no unmarried gods, period, according to Mormonism.

Speculation.

We have been told that eternal marriage is required to enter the highest level of exaltation.

We have been told that no worthy person will be denied any blessing if they are unable to marry.

How those get worked out has not been revealed and is therefore speculation.


Not to mention that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are not considered to have been married before the creation and they were both God.

 

[Ran77]

I think you might have missed something that I posted to you earlier....

Missed it - no.

Didn't bother to read it - yes.

Because of the endless repetition of "you have that doctrine that god was once a man who was born on another planet" blah, blah, blah your posts have become just so much white noise to me. Reading the same response some 30 to 50 times now is enough for me. That seems to have become your response for anything you post to the LDS. I'm not interested in reading the same thing another 30 - 50 times.

I seem to remember Taste For Truth responding to your posts; maybe he will be interested in posting something.

 

[Ran77]

Many of the posts that I read of ECR did not contain links to quotes so that they could be read in context. I recall reading here not very long ago complaints from LDS that non-LDS posted quotes out of context. IIRC, some of those contained links so that the statement could be read in context.

I searched several thread looking for where Revelation Testament and Early Christian Researcher have both posted sources which demonstrate that the LDS are not the only group to teach the doctrine that man may become a god, and cic not see any direct quotes that show this. Could you please provide a link where they have presumably demonstrated this?

Thanks.

Early Christian Researcher started a whole thread on sources for this topic. He includes a link to a Youtube video where Martin Tanner debates the subject with James White (I think). During minutes 5-10 on that interview, Tanner goes through a rather long list of sources, including some quotes. Since that should be sufficient, I'm not going to spend time tracking down where Revelation Testament has done the same.

 

[skylark1]

Early Christian Researcher started a whole thread on sources for this topic. He includes a link to a Youtube video where Martin Tanner debates the subject with James White (I think). During minutes 5-10 on that interview, Tanner goes through a rather long list of sources, including some quotes. Since that should be sufficient, I'm not going to spend time tracking down where Revelation Testament has done the same.

Thanks, Ran. I didn't watch any videos that were linked or read references posted at the end of a post. I thought that you meant that there were quotes posted from Early Church Fathers with references included of their primary source. I appreciate the information, but I don't have enough time right now to listen to videos or read entire books or papers. Maybe I'll look into it later.

 

[drstevej]

Do you think ECR's citation of ZZ Top's Jesus Left Chicago is evidence that Jesus came to the Americas?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7876139/#post67391359

1970s, ZZ Top, Jesus Just Left Chicago, Jesus travels all over. ​

 

[skylark1]

Do you think ECR's citation of ZZ Top's Jesus Left Chicago is evidence that Jesus came to the Americas?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7876139/#post67391359

Wow. He really did post that. I thought that you were cracking some sort of joke that I missed.

(I didn't know that ZZ Top had a song with this title.)