Praise to the Man!

[Toms777]

If the hymn said that Joseph Smith was now a god or something like that, you might have a point. But, because it does not state that Joseph Smith is a god your original position falls flat on its face. Again, it is how the Mormons interpret and understand the hymn, not how, you, as an outsider looking in who will not take the time to listen to Mormons themselves, interpret it under the shadow of your own theological predilections, that matters.

It does not need to say that he is a god. We know that is the doctrine of Mormonism, and we can read the words that give Joseph Smith the attributes of God.

If it walks like a duck, looks like duck and quacks like a duck......

 

[DCP 32° K.T]

The problem is that no one is quacking and walking about except you. The text of the hymn leaves things open. You would wish to close the interpretation by forcing your own upon the wording. Such an approach is not an operable approach except in that it will lead you into misunderstanding as it rather obviously has. Further, you overextend the interpretation to make it into a text that deifies Joseph Smith. But, this again, is the direct result of not being able to set aside your theological predilections and prejudices while attempting to understand the hymn. NO MORMON INTERPRETS OR EVER HAS INTERPRETED THE HYMN AS YOU DO. It is that simple. If you have examples of such, please do post them as I would be most interested in seeing them.

Additionally, does not scripture teach us that those who humble themselves will be exalted and that we are to have in us the same mode of thought which was in Christ and which mode of thought resulted in his own exaltation by God himself? If such is the case, how are we to dispute it? For example, we know that God judges/rules over the angels and the cosmos. Paul says that Christians also will judge/rule over angels and the cosmos. Is this not giving an attribute that belongs to God alone to men? God sits on a throne with Christ at his side. Does not the Bible also teach that we, too, shall sit on the throne with Christ and the Father? Does not the Bible teach that the same glory that was given to Jesus Christ would be given to Christians and that they would be like mirrors of the Lord because they would have the same image as he who is the image of god? How would one not have a high estate if he had all the Father has? Does not the Bible teach that those who are worthy of it will have all that the Father has? Is not this an attribute of the Lord Jesus alone? How does the Bible teach such things if your theological predilections are true or supportable from the text of the Holy Bible itself?

 

[Toms777]

You would wish to close the interpretation by forcing your own upon the wording. Such an approach is not an operable approach except in that it will lead you into misunderstanding as it rather obviously has. Further, you overextend the interpretation to make it into a text that deifies Joseph Smith. But, this again, is the direct result of not being able to set aside your theological predilections and prejudices while attempting to understand the hymn. NO MORMON INTERPRETS OR EVER HAS INTERPRETED THE HYMN AS YOU DO. It is that simple.

If I said that the sky was black, would it matter what interptretation all my friends gave, if they said that they all interpret it to mean that I said that the sky was blue.

The words to the hymn are explicit, and the meaning is in concert with the explicit teachings of Mormonism, which was confirmed on this thread by Mormons. Why then do you argue against it?

If it were false doctrine to say that Joseph Smith will be like God in the eyes of the Mormon church, then I could understand why you would fight so vigorously. But since it is entirely within the doctrine of the Mormon church to say that Joseph Smith can be or is equal to God, then why do you not accept what it says?

If you find the doctrine of the Mormon church which teaches that man can be equal to God to be disturbing, well so do I.

 

[DCP 32° K.T]

If I said that the sky was black, would it matter what interptretation all my friends gave, if they said that they all interpret it to mean that I said that the sky was blue....

If you find the doctrine of the Mormon church which teaches that man can be equal to God to be disturbing, well so do I.

First of all, if YOU had been the writer of the hymn, your rather bad analogy might apply. But, the Mormons here have told you what the hymn represents to them. I have told you what I know on the matter. Thus, in reality, it is you who are trying to interpret the meaning of the hymn for those who are the authorities on the meaning of the hymn or non-meaning thereof in spite of the fact that it is THEIR hymn, not yours. Such methodology is akin to foisting fourth century and late postreformation theology onto first century texts. Oh wait! That is exactly what a lot of people do with the texts.

Incidentally, I do not necessarily find the teaching that men can be equal to or like Christ in some way all that disturbing. It is an Orthodox teaching discarded by Evangelicalism even though the roots of the doctrine can be seen throughout the Greek New Testament. When I read the Bible and see that it teaches that the followers of Christ are going to be like God, that they are going to do things God does, that they are going to attain to the fullness of the stature of the measure of Christ's stature, that they are going to be filled with all the fullness of God like Christ, and that they are going to share in the nature that makes God what he is, as all of the ancient Fathers have maintained in the tradition of the Apostolic teaching, I simply believe what the Bible says! If you do not wish to accept it, fine. Your choice. In point of fact, the Mormons' teaching on this matter is closer in places to that of the ancient Church than that of Evangelicalism, hands down. That's a hard pill to swallow but at least I am willing to admit it.

 

[Toms777]

First of all, if YOU had been the writer of the hymn, your rather bad analogy might apply. But, the Mormons here have told you what the hymn represents to them. but at least I am willing to admit it.

That was the point of my analogy. Igf someone says something oplainly, but others choose to ignore what it says and interpret it differently, does it make that which is otherwise blasphemous any less blasphemous? The answer is clearly no.

Incidentally, I do not necessarily find the teaching that men can be equal to or like Christ in some way all that disturbing. It is an Orthodox teaching discarded by Evangelicalism even though the roots of the doctrine can be seen throughout the Greek New Testament. When I read the Bible and see that it teaches that the followers of Christ are going to be like God, that they are going to do things God does, that they are going to attain to the fullness of the stature of the measure of Christ's stature, that they are going to be filled with all the fullness of God like Christ, and that they are going to share in the nature that makes God what he is, as all of the ancient Fathers have maintained in the tradition of the Apostolic teaching, I simply believe what the Bible says! If you do not wish to accept it, fine. Your choice. In point of fact, the Mormons' teaching on this matter is closer in places to that of the ancient Church than that of Evangelicalism, hands down. That's a hard pill to swallow but at least I am willing to admit it.

I asked this on here before but no one could find any such verse....show me one verse in the Bible that sepcifically says that we will or may become God or gods.

I content that it is nothing less than heresy and blasphemy to make such a claim.

 

[DCP 32° K.T]

...I asked this on here before but no one could find any such verse....show me one verse in the Bible that sepcifically says that we will or may become God or gods.

I content that it is nothing less than heresy and blasphemy to make such a claim.

You may contend this as you wish. Yet, it is an ancient Christian doctrine, fragments of which can be seen in the liturgies of the Orthodox and Catholic faith. I've even seen it in the Anglican Liturgy. The writings of the early Fathers contain it. It had to come from somewhere. It was too widespread at such an early date for it to have been a late addition to the doctrinal pool.

There are many Bible verses that imply such but few that say anything in detail. Only two explicitly state that those to whom the word of God came are gods. The others imply something much more than meets the eye in our English texts. They soften the meaning too much and too many people rely so much on reprinted 19th century commentaries that they miss the point of the Greek New Testament itself, which is that God has promised us theosis through the uniting of Christ's human nature with God in himself.

This is the message of 2 Corinthians 8:9 and other passages and why it was that Paul wanted his readers to remember Christ's ultimate sacrifice for us and give to others. In fact, substitute the word God for rich and the word man and manhood for poor and poverty and you will see clear as crystal the formulary of the ancient Christian faith: "The Word of God became man that through his manhood man may become God." This is the ancient faith. I know that most Protestants (but not all, see the unabridged writings of C.S. Lewis) have discarded the ancient teaching, so I can understand why it is that you are reticent to accept anything that goes beyond what was defined by postreformation theologians.

The Bible says that we will share with God his Divine Nature (the nature that makes him what he is just as human nature makes us what we are and the nature of angels makes them what they are). The Bible says that we will have all things given to us just as Jesus has all things given to him by the Father. The Bible states that we will be like God. The Bible states that we will have the glory that God gave to his Son. The Bible states that we are being changed into the same image that Christ has, even the image of God. The Bible says that we will sit on the throne of God and that we will judge/rule angels and the cosmos. The Bible says that we will be united with with each other and with God as God and Christ are one.

If we will share the nature that makes God what he is with God, what would that make us? We're going to sit on God's throne, have all things, all glory, all dominion, and rule over the angels and the cosmos as images of God as Christ is the image of God united with God. All of these are attributes of the True God and he has promised these to his faithful saints in no less a text than the Bible. Do the math, if your theology will let you.

But, the fact is, you still are reading into this hymn your own theology. This hymn falls short of deifying Smith. Only if you get past the theological prejudice can you understand.

 

[TOmNossor]

DCP,

2 Cor 8:9 is my favorite deification scripture. Most ECF use 2 Peter 1:4 when they speak of deification, but here is one (that I know of) who used this scripture.



Mark the Ascetic - Letter to Nicolas:

The Logos become man, so that man might become Logos. Being rich he became poor for our sakes, so that through his poverty we might become rich. (cf. 2 Cor. 8:9) In His great love for man He became like us, that through every virtue we might become like Him. (The Philokalia 1.155)



Again we do not have such clarity as you receive from some statements such as,



Athanasius - De Incarnation 54 For He was made man that we might be made God.(NF 4.65).



Or



Augustine - The City of God 21.16 Accordingly vices are then only to be considered overcome when they are conquered by the love of God, which God Himself alone gives, and which He gives only through the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who became a partaker of our mortality that He might make us partakers of His divinity.(PNF 2.465)



Or many more.



Of note is former Catholic Priest Father Vajda who wrote:



"The underlying motive for this thesis," Father Vajda states in the new introduction that he has written for FARMS, "was my . . . perception that one connection between the Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lay in the fact that those who sought to deny the label 'Christian' to the LDS Church were, more often than not, the very same people who would then turn around and attempt to deny this label to the Catholic Church with the same reasons often being used in both instances to justify the conclusion. And since it was easy enough for me to see through the many half-truths, misunderstandings, and even outright errors alleged against the Catholic Church, I suspected that similar critiques leveled against the LDSChurch as to its 'non-Christian' status were equally flawed." Accordingly, he decided that he "wanted to reach beyond the rhetoric and discover for [himself] what the LDS Church actually taught," in the hope of encouraging responsible and accurate interfaith dialogue.


"I firmly maintain," writes Father Vajda, "that the Latter-day Saints are owed a debt of gratitude by other Christians because the Saints remind us all of our divine potential. The historic Christian doctrine of salvation theosis, i.e., human divinization for too long has been forgotten by too many Christians." "Members of the LDSChurch," he promises near the beginning of his thesis, "will discover unmistakable evidence that their fundamental belief about human salvation and potential is not unique nor a Mormon invention. Latin Catholics and Protestants will learn of a doctrine of salvation that, while relatively foreign to their ears, is nevertheless part of the heritage of the undivided Catholic Church of the first millennium. Members of Eastern Orthodox and EasternCatholicChurches will discover on the American continent an amazing parallel to their own belief that salvation in Christ involves our becoming 'partakers of the divine nature.'"



TOm:

An interesting turn this thread has taken.
And of course, I think it is pointless and ridiculous to suggest that this hymn places Joseph Smith equal or above Jesus Christ, but apparently what all LDS believe does not stop others from criticizing something nobody believes. Perhaps unknowing observers of this thread may fall pray to this pointless and ridiculous tactic, but I doubt any LDS will be affected by it.





Charity, TOm

 

[Toms777]

You may contend this as you wish. Yet, it is an ancient Christian doctrine, fragments of which can be seen in the liturgies of the Orthodox and Catholic faith. I've even seen it in the Anglican Liturgy. The writings of the early Fathers contain it. It had to come from somewhere. It was too widespread at such an early date for it to have been a late addition to the doctrinal pool.

It is also in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church - so what? Do you follow teachings of men or teachings of God? I thought that Mormons teach that the Roman and Anglican churches were in apostasy and therefore had to restore the church and yet here you are depending upon their teachinsg to get you out of a hot spot on a doctrinal issue.

Fascinating.

No, let's see backup from the Bible for your contention, not the traditions of men that scripture so forcefully speaks against.

This is the message of 2 Corinthians 8:9 and other passages and why it was that Paul wanted his readers to remember Christ's ultimate sacrifice for us and give to others. In fact, substitute the word God for rich and the word man and manhood for poor and poverty and you will see clear as crystal the formulary of the ancient Christian faith: "The Word of God became man that through his manhood man may become God."

What it actually says is:

2 Cor 8:9-10
9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich.
NKJV

I can get any doctrine that I so please if I alter the words of what God said, but that is not sound Biblical exegesis.

Now, how about a verse in the Bible that teaches that we can become God or gods?

The Bible says that we will share with God his Divine Nature (the nature that makes him what he is just as human nature makes us what we are and the nature of angels makes them what they are).

The Bible explains this by telling us that He will give those who are saved the Holy Spirit to indwell us. It does not mean that we become divine.

Try again.

 

[DCP 32° K.T]

...The Bible explains this by telling us that He will give those who are saved the Holy Spirit to indwell us. It does not mean that we become divine.

Try again.

Interesting postreformation spin. The ancient Fathers never would have seen the passage as meaning what you have given. The passage quite clearly states that we will become sharers of the Divine Nature. The nature of angels makes them angels. The nature of man makes him human. The Divine Nature likewise is the nature that makes God what he is. If the author of 2 Peter had intended to refer to the Holy Spirit's indwelling, he would have done so. He did not and this passage is one of the starting points of the ancient Orthodox teaching of Theosis. All of the early Orthodox Fathers understood this text to mean precisely what it says. Even the Gnostics jumped on the bandwagon. And, if looking at the Lord will be like looking at ourselves in a mirror, we surely will be something divine. If you have in common the nature that makes God what he is, surely we will be divine in some sense. That is, if the Bible is to be believed literally.

 

[TOmNossor]

It is also in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church - so what? Do you follow teachings of men or teachings of God? I thought that Mormons teach that the Roman and Anglican churches were in apostasy and therefore had to restore the church and yet here you are depending upon their teachinsg to get you out of a hot spot on a doctrinal issue.

Fascinating.

No, let's see backup from the Bible for your contention, not the traditions of men that scripture so forcefully speaks against.


What it actually says is:

2 Cor 8:9-10
9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich.
NKJV

I can get any doctrine that I so please if I alter the words of what God said, but that is not sound Biblical exegesis.

Now, how about a verse in the Bible that teaches that we can become God or gods?


The Bible explains this by telling us that He will give those who are saved the Holy Spirit to indwell us. It does not mean that we become divine.

Try again.

Toms777:

I can get any doctrine that I so please if I alter the words of what God said, but that is not sound Biblical exegesis.

Now, how about a verse in the Bible that teaches that we can become God or gods?



TOm:

Actually, pointing out that the Catholic and the Orthodox churches, and the Early Church interpret these passages as LDS do is quite powerful. The truth is that until the Reformist came up with sola scriptura nobody looked at the Bible as you do. It is the Protestant Churches who have forgotten what Christ taught the EarlyChurch and what the Catholic and the OrthodoxChurches preserved. And what the Bible teaches. To be “partakers of the divine nature” is quite clear to many Christians. It is you that restrict it to the separate but also Biblical “Holy Spirit to indwell us.”



As far as relying on the Catholic Church to get out of a “hot spot,” how is that relevant? As I have always said, you interpret the Bible in your own unique way. I disagree. When I or DCP show that others agree with us, we add support to our position beside just our personal interpretation. We could say that the Holy Ghost seals our truth and not yours, but that would hardly be productive debate technique.



Charity, TOm

 

[DCP 32° K.T]

...Mark the Ascetic - Letter to Nicolas...

Thanks for reminding me. It is a beautiful passage. You might be interested in some of its directly preceding context I have in a note I typed:

Without contrition of the heart it is altogether impossible to rid ourselves of evil. Now the heart is made contrite by threefold self-control: in sleep, in food and in bodily relaxation. For excess of these three things leads to self-indulgence; and this in turn makes us accept evil thoughts, and is opposed to prayer and to appropriate work.

All the penalties imposed by divine judgment upon man for the sin of the first transgression - death, toil, hunger, thirst and the like - He took upon Himself, becoming what we are, so that we might become what He is.

 

[Toms777]

Interesting postreformation spin. The ancient Fathers never would have seen the passage as meaning what you have given. The passage quite clearly states that we will become sharers of the Divine Nature. The nature of angels makes them angels. The nature of man makes him human. The Divine Nature likewise is the nature that makes God what he is. If the author of 2 Peter had intended to refer to the Holy Spirit's indwelling, he would have done so. He did not and this passage is one of the starting points of the ancient Orthodox teaching of Theosis. All of the early Orthodox Fathers understood this text to mean precisely what it says. Even the Gnostics jumped on the bandwagon. And, if looking at the Lord will be like looking at ourselves in a mirror, we surely will be something divine. If you have in common the nature that makes God what he is, surely we will be divine in some sense. That is, if the Bible is to be believed literally.

I don't know what the ancient fathers would have intended or thought and neither do you....but it matters none to me. What does matter is what the Bible says.

I do not take my doctrine from the traditions of men but from the word of God.

The author of 2 Peter did not need to say that it did not refer to us becoming gods because the Bible speaks so clerarly against it elsewhere. Thus that is the one interpretation which is not permitted by the Bible (and the one which you presume it to mean). For you to hold to that view, you must do two things:

1) Show us a verse in the Bible which says that we can become gods.
2) Explain the multitude of verses which speak so forcefully against it.

 

[emerald Dragon]

To Toms777, on regards to what TOmNossor said:

Toms777: You said that it was interesting that TOm used Catholic teachings to argue for the COJCOLDS, when the LDS Chruch claims that the other churches are in apostasy. You are halfway true.

The Chruch of Christ fell into apostosy. The other Chruches (Catholic, etc.) are not the true and full Church of Christ, though they do have some, if not most of the truth. This means that some teachings will be similar, and correct. What TOm is arguing is a very plaudible argument, one that is probably true.

 

[Toms777]

Actually, pointing out that the Catholic and the Orthodox churches, and the Early Church interpret these passages as LDS do is quite powerful.

Actually, you need to do some research into the history of this theology. The sources for the Roman Catholic article 460 are from St. Athanasius (4th century), who also taught some other heretical doctrine and Thomas Aquinas (13th century)whose theology was nowhere near to orthodox Christian theology.

Regardless, as the Bereans tested Paul using the Bible to determine if his doctrine was true, so must we test the doctrines of men.

Now, let me repeat the question - can you show me in the Bible where it says that we become gods. Even if I were accept your interpret based upon these heretical sources, it does not say that men become God or gods.

 

[Toms777]

To Toms777, on regards to what TOmNossor said:

Toms777: You said that it was interesting that TOm used Catholic teachings to argue for the COJCOLDS, when the LDS Chruch claims that the other churches are in apostasy. You are halfway true.

The Chruch of Christ fell into apostosy. The other Chruches (Catholic, etc.) are not the true and full Church of Christ, though they do have some, if not most of the truth. This means that some teachings will be similar, and correct. What TOm is arguing is a very plaudible argument, one that is probably true.

So how do you know that it is true? We must do as the Bereans did and go back to the Bible to test to determine if it is true, not use the traditions of men to bend our theology.

So show me in the Bible where it says that we can become Giod or gods, rather than taking a verse out of it';[s context and using the Roman Catholic church to interpret it for you.

 

[emerald Dragon]

The author of 2 Peter did not need to say that it did not refer to us becoming gods because the Bible speaks so clerarly against it elsewhere.

What then is the purpose of this life? So that we may learn of Our Father in Heaven, and His Son Jesus Christ, and return to them. The purpose of the Bible to teach us, so that we may achieve this end.

The purpose for all that God has done for us is to perfect us. I don't know how many bible verses say this. And yet, the only things in this Universe that are perfect are God and Christ. So, if we are to become perfect, then we would have to become like God and Christ. That would mean that we would have to be gods (not Gods-note the lower-case g), as to be a god is to be perfect,and vice-versa.

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matt. 5:48

"Thou shalt be perfect with the Lord thy God." Deut. 18:13

So, the bible does tell us this, indirectly, that we will become like Gods.

 

[Toms777]

What then is the purpose of this life? So that we may learn of Our Father in Heaven, and His Son Jesus Christ, and return to them. The purpose of the Bible to teach us, so that we may achieve this end.

The purpose for all that God has done for us is to perfect us. I don't know how many bible verses say this. And yet, the only things in this Universe that are perfect are God and Christ. So, if we are to become perfect, then we would have to become like God and Christ. That would mean that we would have to be gods (not Gods-note the lower-case g), as to be a god is to be perfect,and vice-versa.

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matt. 5:48

"Thou shalt be perfect with the Lord thy God." Deut. 18:13

So, the bible does tell us this, indirectly, that we will become like Gods.

Show me where perfection equates to being God. Yes God is perfect, but is everything which is perfect actually God or a god? Show me where the Bible says this.

 

[TOmNossor]

Toms777,

You have alluded to the fact that the Bible says that men will not be gods. I have not read that in the Bible. That there is one God, I understand and embrace. But you and all those who follow the NEW Bible interpretation think this invalidates the clear statement of 2 Pet 1:4 and the implied truth of 2 Cor. 8:9. And the less convoluted truth of the two Biblical places where the Bible says, “Ye are gods.” One of these of course was Christ explaining that for him to be the Son of God and thus God was not so blasphemous due to the Jews own scriptures saying “Ye are Gods.”



Here is Tertullian using this statement to explain this truth as he saw it:



Tertullian - Adv. Hermogenes 5 Well, then, you say, we ourselves possess nothing of God. But indeed we do, and shall continue to do—only it is from Him that we receive it, and not from ourselves. For we shall be even gods, if we shall deserve to be among those of whom He declared, "I have said, Ye are gods," and "God standeth in the congregation of the gods." But this comes of His own grace, not from any property in us, because it is He alone who can make gods.(ANF 3.480).



Tertullian here sounds entirely LDS.



When you go against 1500 years of proper understanding of the Bible, you stand with Martin Luther, who was very clear he was so wise he could ignore parts of the Bible, and the other reformists. Sorry, if I did not recognize the miracle of the Restoration, I would live with all the problems that exist with the Catholic or EO churches. Quite simply I think it is the ultimate arrogance of the Reformation when they invented sola scriptura and TOTALLY NEW interpretations of the Bible.



Again, I could say that the Holy Spirit seals my interpretation of the Bible and that the Holy Spirit does not seal yours. This seems to be all you do. You repeat, the Bible says, … but history, the miraculously appointed restoration servants of God, DCP, Emerald Dragon, and little old me know that you are wrong.



If you wish show were you and those who follow the men who are the reformists think the Bible says that men cannot become Gods. I will explain that you are mistaken in what you think the Bible says. I have already shown you that the only people who can trace their authority to the Apostles know that you are mistaken. Today it is good to stand with the Catholic and EO churches, because it shows how incredibly weak your sola scriptura position is. I invite you to see that you stand on a shaky foundation when you think the Bible says something it clearly does not. Stop following the errors of Luther and the Reformers, and at least accept that in this area you are the one who has no foundation.



Charity, TOm

 

[Toms777]

Toms777,

You have alluded to the fact that the Bible says that men will not be gods. I have not read that in the Bible. That there is one God, I understand and embrace. But you and all those who follow the NEW Bible interpretation think this invalidates the clear statement of 2 Pet 1:4 and the implied truth of 2 Cor. 8:9. And the less convoluted truth of the two Biblical places where the Bible says, “Ye are gods.” One of these of course was Christ explaining that for him to be the Son of God and thus God was not so blasphemous due to the Jews own scriptures saying “Ye are Gods.”

The 2 Cor and 2 Pet were dealt with, so let's move on. (BTW, note that I am not dealing wuith the interpretations of men but since the Bible says that we are to use scripture to test what man says, that is what I will do.

So, let's look at your latest entry, which is "yes are gods". Psalm 82 tells us what type of gods that tehse are:

2 How long will you judge unjustly,
And show partiality to the wicked?
Selah

5 They do not know, nor do they understand;
They walk about in darkness;
All the foundations of the earth are unstable.
6 I said, "You are gods,
And all of you are children of the Most High.
7 But you shall die like men,
And fall like one of the princes."

These are men, unjust judge, who have no understanding and walk in darkness.

Are these the Mormon gods to whom you refer?

 

[TOmNossor]

Toms777,

I actually referred to the New Testament reference that Jesus gave. I am well aware of judges and other such ways of looking at this verse. I have shown you that until the Bible was selectively interpreted by Luther, Christians did not see what you see. You see one thing, I see another. Except for those who embrace the Reformation, nobody agrees with you.



I asked you were the Bible says that men cannot become gods. It does not say this. You failed to answer. Is this because you recognize it does not say this? Or is this because you know that I will say that the Prophet of God, the LDS, the Pope, the Catholics, and the Easter Orthodox, and me all disagree with your unique interpretation of some scripture you reference. The Bible does not say, “Men do not become gods.” It is your read that tells you this, but history disagrees with the read of Toms777.



Charity, TOm