It is currently Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:21 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 367 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 18  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Blasphemy or Biblical?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:00 pm 
God

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:59 am
Posts: 1681
One of the main reasons, if not the main reason, that the chuch has been verbally attacked is our belief that a man may become a god. The enemies of the chuch have said that this is not Biblical and that it is blasphemy. However, I contend that it is a Biblical teaching. Psalms 82:6 clearly and simply states: "Ye are gods and all of you are the children of the most high." Christ used this scripture to defend Himself against this very charge of blasphemy as recorded in John 10:33: "Isn't it written in your law, I said, ye are gods." Also, to show that this means much more than simply being an immortal being, Christ states, as recorded in Revelation 3:21: "To him that overcometh willI grant to sit with me in my throne even as I overcame and am sat down with my Father in His throne."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blasphemy or Biblical?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:05 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:52 am
Posts: 7306
The reason for people criticising the Church on this is because it tries to hide what it explicitly teaches.

Here is the deception.

Mormonism 101 wrote:
Do Latter-day Saints believe they can become “gods”?
Latter-day Saints believe that God wants us to become like Him. But this teaching is often misrepresented by those who caricature the faith. The Latter-day Saint belief is no different than the biblical teaching, which states, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:16-17). Through following Christ's teachings, Latter-day Saints believe all people can become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will “get their own planet”?
No. This idea is not taught in Latter-day Saint scripture, nor is it a doctrine of the Church. This misunderstanding stems from speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine. Mormons believe that we are all sons and daughters of God and that all of us have the potential to grow during and after this life to become like our Heavenly Father (see Romans 8:16-17). The Church does not and has never purported to fully understand the specifics of Christ’s statement that “in my Father’s house are many mansions” (John 14:2).


And here is what the Church actually teaches...


Gospel Principles Chapter 47 wrote:
Blessings of Exaltation
• What are some blessings that will be given to those who are exalted?
Our Heavenly Father is perfect, and He glories in the fact that it is possible for His children to become like Him. His work and glory is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:62).
2. They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23).
3. They will be united eternally with their righteous family members and will be able to have eternal increase.
4. They will receive a fulness of joy.
5. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19–20). President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to His commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:36; italics in original).

_________________
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blasphemy or Biblical?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:58 am 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 7446
Drifting wrote:
The reason for people criticising the Church on this is because it tries to hide what it explicitly teaches.



Some of that criticism is coming from members of the church.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blasphemy or Biblical?
PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:01 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:48 am
Posts: 17435
Not many here argue against the Church because of Theosis. It's mostly ex and disaffected mos. Very few EV's.

_________________
A lesson on 'Faggotry' for Kevin Graham since the homosexuals on the board won't admit that it's used among themselves as a purely descriptive, even positive term.

Conservatism is the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action
He who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Machina Sublime


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blasphemy or Biblical?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:02 am 
Elder
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 348
Location: The Great Expanse of the Magical Net
bcspace wrote:
Not many here argue against the Church because of Theosis. It's mostly ex and disaffected mos. Very few EV's.


Theosis is not the same as the heretical blasphemy taught by BY and others. Authentic Christianity insists on a distinction between being joined with God on the one hand and becoming a god on the other. Using the word "theosis" does not mean that what you mean when you say "theosis" is what actual Christians mean when they say "theosis."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blasphemy or Biblical?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:31 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 3:33 pm
Posts: 12064
Location: Kli-flos-is-es
gdemetz wrote:
One of the main reasons, if not the main reason, that the chuch has been verbally attacked is our belief that a man may become a god. The enemies of the chuch have said that this is not Biblical and that it is blasphemy. However, I contend that it is a Biblical teaching. Psalms 82:6 clearly and simply states: "Ye are gods and all of you are the children of the most high." Christ used this scripture to defend Himself against this very charge of blasphemy as recorded in John 10:33: "Isn't it written in your law, I said, ye are gods." Also, to show that this means much more than simply being an immortal being, Christ states, as recorded in Revelation 3:21: "To him that overcometh willI grant to sit with me in my throne even as I overcame and am sat down with my Father in His throne."


The church tries to pretend it doesn't believe it anymore. They must be ashamed of the doctrine.

_________________
Parley P. Pratt wrote:
We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:
There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blasphemy or Biblical?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:04 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:50 am
Posts: 3771
Location: Your mother's purse
Drifting wrote:
The reason for people criticising the Church on this is because it tries to hide what it explicitly teaches.

Here is the deception.

exactly what is the deception?

_________________
Stated simply and crassly, by law, preservation of life is foremost. Rational, reasonable, logical and emotional plays no part. I simply did my part. - bcuzbcuz

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard_Feynman


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blasphemy or Biblical?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:05 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:50 am
Posts: 3771
Location: Your mother's purse
Buffalo wrote:
The church tries to pretend it doesn't believe it anymore. They must be ashamed of the doctrine.

by hiding it in chapter 47 of Gospel Principles?
is that a sort of "hiding in plain sight" strategy?

_________________
Stated simply and crassly, by law, preservation of life is foremost. Rational, reasonable, logical and emotional plays no part. I simply did my part. - bcuzbcuz

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard_Feynman


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blasphemy or Biblical?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:24 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 7446
subgenius wrote:
Buffalo wrote:
The church tries to pretend it doesn't believe it anymore. They must be ashamed of the doctrine.

by hiding it in chapter 47 of Gospel Principles?
is that a sort of "hiding in plain sight" strategy?


Stop playing dumb. You know perfectly well people are talking about sites like Mormonism 101.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blasphemy or Biblical?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:38 pm 
God

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:59 am
Posts: 1681
Yea, it is definitely a teaching of the church, and I have to admit that I myself sometimes get irritated by those in the church who seem hesitant to "tell it like it is" in their efforts to polish the image of the church, as if some of those observing would not be intelligent enough to see right through what they are trying to do!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blasphemy or Biblical?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:15 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 7446
gdemetz wrote:
Yea, it is definitely a teaching of the church, and I have to admit that I myself sometimes get irritated by those in the church who seem hesitant to "tell it like it is" in their efforts to polish the image of the church, as if some of those observing would not be intelligent enough to see right through what they are trying to do!


You may notice that what bothers many is not that the church teaches it, but that sites meant for PR purposes are not being honest about it and some other doctrines. Personally I think it is one of the better doctrines, even if not true. I guess being LDS I may not understand well how other Christian groups react so negatively.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blasphemy or Biblical?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:23 pm 
God

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:59 am
Posts: 1681
Are you LDS?!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blasphemy or Biblical?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:27 pm 
Has More Degrees Than Droopy
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 3:21 pm
Posts: 2517
Location: Cassius University: Ho Chi Minh Professor of American Military History
gdemetz wrote:
One of the main reasons, if not the main reason, that the chuch has been verbally attacked is our belief that a man may become a god. The enemies of the chuch have said that this is not Biblical and that it is blasphemy. However, I contend that it is a Biblical teaching. Psalms 82:6 clearly and simply states: "Ye are gods and all of you are the children of the most high." Christ used this scripture to defend Himself against this very charge of blasphemy as recorded in John 10:33: "Isn't it written in your law, I said, ye are gods." Also, to show that this means much more than simply being an immortal being, Christ states, as recorded in Revelation 3:21: "To him that overcometh willI grant to sit with me in my throne even as I overcame and am sat down with my Father in His throne."


Most secular critics are more concerned that not a lick of evidence exists to support the Book of Mormon's historical accuracy.

_________________
Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07

MASH quotes
I peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it.
I avoid church religiously.
This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blasphemy or Biblical?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:40 pm 
God

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:59 am
Posts: 1681
It is an "adulterous generation" that seeketh for a sign.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blasphemy or Biblical?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:10 am 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:52 am
Posts: 7306
gdemetz wrote:
It is an "adulterous generation" that seeketh for a sign.


Here is an example of an organisation teaching it's "adulterous generation" to seek for signs...

Gospel Principles Chapter 43: Signs of the Second Coming

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-princi ... g?lang=eng

_________________
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blasphemy or Biblical?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:28 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 7446
gdemetz wrote:
Are you LDS?!


If you mean me, the answer is yes.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blasphemy or Biblical?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:30 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 7446
Drifting wrote:
gdemetz wrote:
It is an "adulterous generation" that seeketh for a sign.


Here is an example of an organisation teaching it's "adulterous generation" to seek for signs...

Gospel Principles Chapter 43: Signs of the Second Coming

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-princi ... g?lang=eng


Would asking God if the Book of Mormon is true mean you are a sign seeker, and therefore part of this adulterous generation?

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blasphemy or Biblical?
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 5:27 am 
Nursery
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:58 pm
Posts: 17
Location: North Carolina
Please excuse the following outburst of pedantry, but this is kind of a complicated issue.

One of Christianity's most challenging problems is how to reconcile monotheism with the belief that Jesus is the Son of God. Traditional Christianity does this through trinitarianism, which holds that there are three separate persons in one God.

Historically, there are two periods when non-trinitarianism was relatively popular. The first was during early Christianity when trinitarian beliefs were not yet fully formed. The second was the Age of Reason in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Some of the alternatives to trinitarianism are unitarianism (though Jesus was the Son of God, he wasn't really God, as believed by Unitarians, Deists, and early on by Ebionists), modalism (God's three persons are not actually separate, but are simply different manifestations of the one God, as suggested by some passages in the original Book of Mormon), and henotheism (Jesus is a separate God from God the Father, but is by nature subordinate to God the Father, as believed by Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and early on by Arians, or is dominant over God the Father, as believed by Marcionists).

Henotheism is a form of polytheism, which leads to the question: If there can be more than one God, why can't there be many, and why can't we become gods ourselves? Some cultures, such as ancient Greco-Roman culture, accepted the belief that people could be raised to become gods. As D. Michael Quinn has pointed out, this is the closest historical parallel to Mormon belief.

This belief differs from the idea of theosis in traditional Christianity, which is that people can acquire many of the virtues that are personified by God without either becoming gods themselves (as in Greco-Roman religion) or losing their individual identities by being merged into God (as in some forms of Hinduism and Buddhism). The metaphor used for traditional Christian theosis is that an individual can become like a perfectly clean window through which God's light can shine.

But here's my point: The reason people get so exercised about this is because there's no simple, intuitive answer. Proof-texts can be culled to support any of these positions. It's an argument with no solution that can be reached by research or discussion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blasphemy or Biblical?
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:17 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:28 pm
Posts: 1345
Location: AZ
Gentile Persuasion wrote:
Please excuse the following outburst of pedantry, but this is kind of a complicated issue.

One of Christianity's most challenging problems is how to reconcile monotheism with the belief that Jesus is the Son of God. Traditional Christianity does this through trinitarianism, which holds that there are three separate persons in one God.

Historically, there are two periods when non-trinitarianism was relatively popular. The first was during early Christianity when trinitarian beliefs were not yet fully formed. The second was the Age of Reason in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Some of the alternatives to trinitarianism are unitarianism (though Jesus was the Son of God, he wasn't really God, as believed by Unitarians, Deists, and early on by Ebionists), modalism (God's three persons are not actually separate, but are simply different manifestations of the one God, as suggested by some passages in the original Book of Mormon), and henotheism (Jesus is a separate God from God the Father, but is by nature subordinate to God the Father, as believed by Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and early on by Arians, or is dominant over God the Father, as believed by Marcionists).

Henotheism is a form of polytheism, which leads to the question: If there can be more than one God, why can't there be many, and why can't we become gods ourselves? Some cultures, such as ancient Greco-Roman culture, accepted the belief that people could be raised to become gods. As D. Michael Quinn has pointed out, this is the closest historical parallel to Mormon belief.

This belief differs from the idea of theosis in traditional Christianity, which is that people can acquire many of the virtues that are personified by God without either becoming gods themselves (as in Greco-Roman religion) or losing their individual identities by being merged into God (as in some forms of Hinduism and Buddhism). The metaphor used for traditional Christian theosis is that an individual can become like a perfectly clean window through which God's light can shine.

But here's my point: The reason people get so exercised about this is because there's no simple, intuitive answer. Proof-texts can be culled to support any of these positions. It's an argument with no solution that can be reached by research or discussion.


You are correct that scripture is open enough for many interpretations. I personally believe that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are separate and my reasoning stems from what Christ said on the cross.

Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

But of course God could be so complex that my reasoning does not apply.

Now we do have many examples of beings being called a god yet we know that they are not in the classic sense. More of a title because of the powers they can command. So can someone be called a god and demand worship even though the powers of that being can be taken away? From my perspective there is just not enough data and I will just wait and find out. No matter what the reality turns out to be it will not change the course I find myself on.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blasphemy or Biblical?
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 1:24 pm 
Nursery
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:58 pm
Posts: 17
Location: North Carolina
Mormons and trinitarian Christians agree that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are separate from God the Father. They differ on whether Jesus, the Holy Ghost, and God the Father are separate Gods, or whether they are separate persons who are united in one God.

Franktalk wrote:
So can someone be called a god and demand worship even though the powers of that being can be taken away? From my perspective there is just not enough data and I will just wait and find out.


As I understand it, the idea that "God would cease to be God" under some circumstances is a uniquely Mormon belief. The publishers of the Nauvoo Expositor didn't like the fact that Joseph Smith apparently taught it, but it was apparently accepted by John A. Widtsoe and Cleon Skousen, among others.

As I heard Skousen explain it, this possibility is due to the belief that God is necessarily subject to at least some natural laws, and also the belief that what he called "little intelligences" pervade the universe, including otherwise inanimate matter. Skousen said that if God acts in a way that is excessively merciful, this will be perceived as unjust by enough of the intelligences that they will essentially vote God out of office. This is why the Atonement required Christ's suffering and crucifixion before humanity's sins could be forgiven.

I don't know how mainstream this idea is within current Mormon thought. Maybe some of the other folks on this board could enlighten me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blasphemy or Biblical?
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 5:20 pm 
God

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:59 am
Posts: 1681
There is a simple way to find out if the Book of Mormon is true or not, or if we can really become gods or not, as the Bible teaches, or anything else regarding the gospel, and that is to seriously take Moroni's challenge as millions have already done.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 367 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 18  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group