Are LDS Protestants or are they separate?

[hosemonkey]

Consider the following quotation attributed to Rabbi Akiba, who was a prominent Jewish leader in the late first and early second centuries AD.“The Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future call all of the pious by their names, and give them a cup of elixir of life in their hands so that they should live and endure forever… And the Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future reveal to all the pious in the World to Come the Ineffable Name with which new heavens and a new earth can be created, so that all of them should be able to create new worlds… The Holy One, blessed be He, will give every pious three hundred and forty worlds in inheritance in the World to Come.” (Midrash Alpha Beta diR. Akiba, BhM 3:32,

Who do you follow, Rabbi Akiba, or Jesus Christ?
Christ promises life in the world to come, not dominion over our own planets.

 

[Famule]

Sorry Prodigal, I had a look, and I think that all of your objections have been addressed. If you can’t see it, then anything else I say will not be of any help to you.

zerinus

None of us will be able to see any logic or truth in it, because these things do not exist in the LDS. It is a cult and they will continue to make things up with an interesting degree of creativity following their founder’s example.

 

[mntbike]

I understand, hose. But from my perspective, good intentions aren’t a good enough reason to ignore the second of the Ten Commandments.

Whatabout the first Commandment:ONE: ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.’

Once again Yes or No.

 

[BDawg]

So is that a yes to my question that you think that you are going to be a God? Like I asked yes or no. Why will you not answer that?

Yes.

I would have thought that saying, “I believe that,” would be direct enough for you, but… whatever.

One person (I don’t remember if it was you) mentioned that they had asked about this to some Mormon missionaries, and they fell silent. Well, I fielded this question hundreds of times as a missionary, so I wonder what was going on. Could it be that the person asking this question was so vehement and hateful in their demeanor that the missionaries figured it wasn’t worth the trouble of explaining things to them? (We were trained to answer sincere questions, but avoid heated arguments.)

Just look at what people (including you) have been saying just on this thread! Honestly, as a Mormon, I just feel waves of hatred washing over me from your direction. And I’m someone who has no problem with you disagreeing with anything I believe. But most of you haven’t been offering any arguments for your point of view, so we can have a discussion. You’ve just been opining about how stupid, silly, ridiculous, etc., LDS beliefs are. How could any rational person believe that? And so on…

Lucky for you, I know quite a few Catholics who are lovely people, so I won’t judge your religion by your behavior. And lucky for you, I have actually read quite a few Catholic scholarly and apologetic books, so I know that reasonable arguments can be made for your beliefs, even if some of you are incapable of producing one.

 

[BDawg]

Who do you follow, Rabbi Akiba, or Jesus Christ?
Christ promises life in the world to come, not dominion over our own planets.

I think Jesus also implied that Christians who overcome the world will RULE with Christ, not just look at him for eternity.

“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” (Revelation 3:21)

 

[armyross]

Why would you say that, Ross?

Bdawg,

I am not trying to disrespect you by any means. I was trying to let mnt. know what I think about some LDS people answering questions. I really like to read your posts. You always are very respectful, as for the others on this thread that are not being respectful to you I am sorry for that.

 

[BDawg]

BDawg;3895426:

I understand, hose. But from my perspective, good intentions aren’t a good enough reason to ignore the second of the Ten Commandments.

Whatabout the first Commandment:ONE: ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.’

Once again Yes or No.

It would be helpful if you would ask a question to which a “Yes or No” answer would actually make sense.

“Whatabout the first Commandment?” Yes.

Like I said, Mormons believe all Beings who can be called gods are ONE. So we have no problem with the first commandment. And if you had read that other thread that I keep referring to, you would have understood this point very clearly. There is a nice discussion there about how Mormons define the Divine Unity, and what kind of evidence we can point to in support of our view.

 

[mntbike]

mntbike;3895448:

“Whatabout the first Commandment?” Yes.

Like I said, Mormons believe all Beings who can be called gods are ONE.
I am showing the first commandment in reference to the fact that Mormons think that they will be God. That means that you don’t follow the first commandment. I am sure that you will justify this but whatever I made my point. LDS are not Christians if they believe in more then one God. Which they do if they believe that they can become a God. You guys come up with whatever you want.

 

[BDawg]

BDawg;3895382:

Why would you say that, Ross?

Bdawg,

I am not trying to disrespect you by any means. I was trying to let mnt. know what I think about some LDS people answering questions. I really like to read your posts. You always are very respectful, as for the others on this thread that are not being respectful to you I am sorry for that.

Thanks, Ross.

I think sometimes you guys play up Mormon “avoidance” of questions a bit too much, though.

The fact is that we have very different assumptions about things like what it means to be God, how human nature is related to the Divine Nature, and so on. And so it can be very difficult to explain our beliefs to others, especially when someone pops out with a question like, “Don’t you believe that you will become a God of your own planet?” There are a lot of things that people need to understand before they can hope to understand the answer to that one.

So can Mormons be blamed too much if they try to avoid building the roof before the foundation and walls? It takes a lot of patience to help people understand us, and some people don’t have the patience to listen. Furthermore, many LDS don’t know enough about other belief systems to understand where the differences truly are. Can they be blamed for not knowing how to proceed when someone asks about one of our more “different” beliefs? For Pete’s sake, I know dozens of Catholics who are stunningly ignorant about their own beliefs. On average, I’d put Mormons up against Catholics on that score any day of the week!

So what I’m saying is that understanding takes time and patience, and accusing others of being disingenuous just because they have a hard time knowing how to talk to someone with a very different belief system, ***doesn’t help matters. ***People often have trouble communicating–anyone who has ever been married knows this well. I suggest we just calm down and try to make the best of it.

I started posting here because I assumed that some people who ask about Mormonism on the “Non-Catholic Religions” board actually want to understand us. I have found that to be true, but I have to say that the majority of posters here seem to just want to put other people down. (I’m not including you in that assessment, Ross.)

 

[majick275]

mntbike;3895448:

It would be helpful if you would ask a question to which a “Yes or No” answer would actually make sense.

“Whatabout the first Commandment?” Yes.

Like I said, Mormons believe all Beings who can be called gods are ONE. So we have no problem with the first commandment. And if you had read that other thread

that I keep referring to, you would have understood this point very clearly. There is a nice discussion there about how Mormons define the Divine Unity, and what kind of evidence we can point to in support of our view.
i’m not so sure about this. i understand your stance regarding elohim, jehovah and the holy ghost as the one “godhead” of “us” but i don’t think this particular “union” applies to other Gods such as elohim’s brothers or those of other generations. are you suggesting a “communion of saints” type relationship for all exalted beings?

 

[zaffiroborant]

Hi zaff,

The answer is simply that the LDS idea of theosis is not exactly like the Catholic one. For us, theosis doesn’t mean much unless you end up doing the kinds of things God does.

But you see, I don’t think the LDS idea of theosis is anything like the Catholic one. It seems to me that you begin with ideas (that underly theosis) that are so far apart from the Catholic ones, that at the end you get a product that is entirely different. Theosis is not Exaltation.

 

[BDawg]

I am showing the first commandment in reference to the fact that Mormons think that they will be God. That means that you don’t follow the first commandment. I am sure that you will justify this but whatever I made my point. LDS are not Christians if they believe in more then one God. Which they do if they believe that they can become a God. You guys come up with whatever you want.

“God became man, so that man might become God.” [St. Augustine, Sermo 13 de Tempore]

You might also want to check out the Catechism on the subject of “theosis,” i.e., becoming gods.

And yes, I’m aware that the CCC and Augustine didn’t have the same view of deification as the LDS. My point is that Catholicism says that people can become gods, and yet, the first commandment doesn’t seem to bother them.

 

[BDawg]

BDawg;3895510:

i’m not so sure about this. i understand your stance regarding elohim, jehovah and the holy ghost as the one “godhead” of “us” but i don’t think this particular “union” applies to other Gods such as elohim’s brothers or those of other generations. are you suggesting a “communion of saints” type relationship for all exalted beings?

Yes, I think the “communion of saints” analogy is apt. I produced quotations by Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, and John Taylor in support of this point in another thread. Here’s one of them.

“If men are faithful, the time will come when they will possess the power and the knowledge to obtain, organize, bring into existence, and own. “What, of themselves, independent of their Creator?” No. But they and their Creator will always be one, they will always be of one heart and of one mind, working and operating together; for whatsoever the Father doeth so doeth the son, and so they continue throughout all their operations to all eternity.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 2:305-306)

 

[BDawg]

But you see, I don’t think the LDS idea of theosis is anything like the Catholic one. It seems to me that you begin with ideas (that underly theosis) that are so far apart from the Catholic ones, that at the end you get a product that is entirely different. Theosis is not Exaltation.

I think there is a lot of truth to what you said there, Zaff. The main issue is not whether we can become “gods,” but the underlying definitions that undergird how we interpret such a statement.

 

[majick275]

majick275;3895628:

Yes, I think the “communion of saints” analogy is apt. I produced quotations by Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, and John Taylor in support of this point in another thread. Here’s one of them.

“If men are faithful, the time will come when they will possess the power and the knowledge to obtain, organize, bring into existence, and own. “What, of themselves, independent of their Creator?” No. But they and their Creator will always be one, they will always be of one heart and of one mind, working and operating together; for whatsoever the Father doeth so doeth the son, and so they continue throughout all their operations to all eternity.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses

2:305-306)
i don’t see the connection of your quote. that seems more the continuing relationship of parent/child that eternal progression espouses but i am referring to the siblings/cousins/uncles etc. relationships. that would seem difficult to incorporate into the same model.

 

[BDawg]

BDawg;3895696:

i don’t see the connection of your quote. that seems more the continuing relationship of parent/child that eternal progression espouses but i am referring to the siblings/cousins/uncles etc. relationships. that would seem difficult to incorporate into the same model.

Hi maj,

I thought the “of one heart and one mind, working and operating together” part addressed this. The idea is that all who are gods are one in each other.

Anyway, the “communion of saints” analogy made sense to me.

 

[majick275]

I think there is a lot of truth to what you said there, Zaff. The main issue is not whether we can become “gods,” but the underlying definitions that undergird how we interpret such a statement.

exactly. and this is why catholics reconcile those scriptures very differently. the catholic position is the beatific vision wherein we become god only in the sense that God shares all of his divinity with us. we are taken inside the trinitarian “family”. we enjoy all of the benefits yet we are never ontologically “God”.

the LDS position is that we are literal progeny of God who is literal progeny of his God and so on. they believe that they can also grow to sire future generations of Gods, that they can in fact “mature” to Gods while still maintaining a relationship with god as his children.

 

[BDawg]

exactly. and this is why catholics reconcile those scriptures very differently. the catholic position is the beatific vision wherein we become god only in the sense that God shares all of his divinity with us. we are taken inside the trinitarian “family”. we enjoy all of the benefits yet we are never ontologically “God”.

the LDS position is that we are literal progeny of God who is literal progeny of his God and so on. they believe that they can also grow to sire future generations of Gods, that they can in fact “mature” to Gods while still maintaining a relationship with god as his children.

Wow. Are we actually succeeding at turning this thread into a serious discussion?

Thanks for dropping in, Maj.

 

[Auntie_M]

For mormons, the temple ceremony is sacred and not to be discussed outside the temple. It is not even discussed in sunday school or in any other meeting in the lds church. However, the temple is discussed as a holy place but the ceremony’s details are off limits for public discussion.

You know, the Mason’s secret “Temple” meetings are off limits to the public as well. And you “really” don’t see the similarities?

As far as the “Graven Images” . The Bible tells us Not to make graven images (like the golden calf) and worship them. Now, if you will read Exodus and Leviticus, it tells us what is acceptable and what is not.

Honoring the cross, or images of Jesus or Mary is not the same as “worshipping a graven image and making a God out of it” as Jesus is one Lord, Lord of all.

 

[PHX_Paul]

None of us will be able to see any logic or truth in it, because these things do not exist in the LDS. It is a cult and they will continue to make things up with an interesting degree of creativity following their founder’s example.

There are “Latter Day Saints” on my father’s side of the family tree. When they use to visit, my mother never offered them Coke or Pepsi. But now when they visit, my mother stocks up on Pepsi because they said it is OK to drink Pepsi but not Coke!!!

Sorry to be flippant, but did the President of the Church of Jesus Christ take the “Pepsi Challenge” or did he have a " divine revelation" concerning the matter?

Paul