Do LDS openly acknowledge that their religion teaches the belief of multiple gods?

[ParkerD]

As I originally stated, I know nothing of the LDS beliefs. Now these are just my opinions and I do not intend any disrespect. In the spirit of gaining knowledge of another religion, I hope I was respectful in my questioning.

I came with a question that listed what a LDS would consider as offensive and anti-LDS. Of all the sites that are maintained by ex-LDS the list was fairly consistent in their specific claims as to what LDS believes. … I went to the official LDS and Mormon sites and found something very different with a few points confirming the ex-LDS claims, such as baptism of the dead by proxy. …
Then this post hit me between the eyes, “bring those who qualify through gaining the full promised blessings of the Savior’s grace, to a position of being like the Savior in perfect love and in omniscience and omnipotence so they can share in that same joy“ and “Heavenly Father is not jealous or worried about “losing power or authority” by granting His power and authority and omnipotence to other spirits who prove themselves by virtue of their choices and their actions and desires” WHAT IN THE WORLD IS GOING ON HERE, Are you saying that a person can attain the same omnipotence as God?

Omnipotence –noun

1. the quality or state of being omnipotent.
2. (initial capital letter ) GOD.

omnipotent - adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.

1. One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents.
2. Omnipotent God. Used with the.

Who are these people that can qualify? LDS? Are you saying that someone can come to be a God? Are you saying that God the Father can grant godship to others who prove themselves worthy?

I am floored by this post. These are your words and beliefs as a LDS. I am starting to wonder now if the ex-LDS have really have put out there what LDS really believe.

I am at a loss here, just blown away. Everything that I had came to understand, though limited about the LDS faith, has now been undone. May God have mercy on you. WOW

WM Scott,
I do agree with the hope and actually the belief that God will have mercy on me. That is what the gospel is all about. That is what grace is all about.

If you believe that Jesus really taught what He believed and knew to be true, and that John wrote a vision that showed the future possibilities for humankind (the book of Revelation) and also wrote about what he had been taught by Jesus through a personal intimate association John had with Christ, then the following verses pertain to this subject:

Matthew 25:21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

1 John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21 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.
22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Revelation 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

These verses don’t just apply to LDS. They apply to anyone who “hath an ear to hear, let him hear what the Spirit saith” and to anyone who “hath this hope in him” and therefore will absolutely and with determination seek to “purifieth himself even as He is pure”.

If God sets up another way to gain that purification and sanctification other than through authorized baptismal covenants, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, sanctification, washing and anointing in a place of holiness, and overcoming all the tests and trials of life including the “fiery darts of the adversary” just as John and Paul wrote about, then God can certainly do that. But the promises are there, and they are covenant promises. Being like Christ means being omnipotent, like Christ, and perfect, like Christ. I don’t know “how” it’s done, nor “why” it’s possible using my finite mind, but omnipotence means God can do all things, with absolutely no limitation.

 

[dianaiad]

The Book of Mormon does not provide population statistics for their “great cities”, and it claims that ar least some of the great cities were built in cement. Parker is just making stuff up as usual.

Paul, are you seriously going to say that there were no cement constructions in the ancient American world?

Seriously?

 

[dianaiad]

You mean they don’t accurately represent your personal beliefs. The “anti” sites accurately quote your prophets’ and apostles’ conference talks, magazine articles and the books they’ve written.

The problem is that very few Mormons (including the ones on this forum) agree with their church’s historic teachings. Each has her own private version of Mormonism (usually greatly sanitized and rarely agreeing with the others) that makes her comfortable and able to believe that her founders and leaders are not a bunch of wack-jobs. That way she can live in her little pseudo-Mormon bubble and keep her circle of family, friends and livelihood intact. But it is a house of cards, bound to fall.

Paul, you are a classic example of what I’m talking about. YOU go around cherry picking conference talks, etc. and use them to ‘prove’ that our doctrines are what YOU claim they are. The problem is, if we did the same thing to you in regard to Catholicism, you would quite rightly have a kitten fit.

Doctrine is NOT defined by the personal opinions of men–even fairly high ranking men–giving their personal opinions on something. You, even though you have this idea of Papal infallibility, go ballistic when something one of your Popes has written is used to ‘prove’ that "Catholics believe this or that’ if you don’t happen to agree with whatever it is. You know…like slavery being acceptable?

Your view of LDS doctrine is very convenient…it is whatever you claim it is, and you abrogated your right to decide LDS doctrine when you left the church; not that you actually ever HAD that right. As you say, you can decide YOUR beliefs–but not what mine are, or what the church’s are.

What we MORMONS say is that our core doctrine is contained within the canonized scriptures that we accept as such. Call it…dogma. Everything else is subject to review.

 

[wmscott]

WM Scott,
I do agree with the hope and actually the belief that God will have mercy on me. That is what the gospel is all about. That is what grace is all about.

If you believe that Jesus really taught what He believed and knew to be true, and that John wrote a vision that showed the future possibilities for humankind (the book of Revelation) and also wrote about what he had been taught by Jesus through a personal intimate association John had with Christ, then the following verses pertain to this subject:

Matthew 25:21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

1 John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21 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.
22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Revelation 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

These verses don’t just apply to LDS. They apply to anyone who “hath an ear to hear, let him hear what the Spirit saith” and to anyone who “hath this hope in him” and therefore will absolutely and with determination seek to “purifieth himself even as He is pure”.

If God sets up another way to gain that purification and sanctification other than through authorized baptismal covenants, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, sanctification, washing and anointing in a place of holiness, and overcoming all the tests and trials of life including the “fiery darts of the adversary” just as John and Paul wrote about, then God can certainly do that. But the promises are there, and they are covenant promises. Being like Christ means being omnipotent, like Christ, and perfect, like Christ. I don’t know “how” it’s done, nor “why” it’s possible using my finite mind, but omnipotence means God can do all things, with absolutely no limitation.

I am sorry and I mean no disrespect, but I feel that you and the LDS faith have totally perverted the Sacred Scriptures. There is no way that anyone other than God can be omnipotent. It unsettles me to think that folks believe that they can become gods, equal to Christ, not a chance in all of eternity.

 

[Marie5890]

I made a statement earlier; that before I came to CAF, in over 40 years of dealing with ex-members of the LDS church, and with anti-Mormons, I had NEVER, ONCE, seen a publication by one that presented our beliefs accurately, never mind with any sense of objectivity, balance or understanding. I don’t mind the latter–after all, if the antis and ex’s still LIKED us, they’d BE one of us. I do resent the inaccuracy, though–and I don’t understand the purpose behind that, either. Nevertheless, it is a true statement.

Just curious. Have you ever read “No man knows my history” by Fawn Brodie? She was a historian and niece of Pres. David O McKay? She had unfettered access to much of the early historical recorders of the church that others did not have.

Fascinating read.

I would recommend it to anyone.

 

[dianaiad]

Just curious. Have you ever read “No man knows my history” by Fawn Brodie? She was a historian and niece of Pres. David O McKay? She had unfettered access to much of the early historical recorders of the church that others did not have.

Fascinating read.

I would recommend it to anyone.

yep, and she also made some inaccurate statements…though she did her research better than most.

 

[Marie5890]

yep, and she also made some inaccurate statements…though she did her research better than most.

I admit I have never meet any human being who has never made an inaccurate statement in my life to to be sure.

I know I have made them and I am sure you have too…

Im sure I could find inaccurcies in your posts as well as mine if I were to take the time…

No one but Christ is perfect, huh?

 

[dianaiad]

I have no problem with what you’ve said, but I just want to clarify that I did not ask you if an ex-anything WON’T be objectively honest…I think I asked if you feel that they simply CANNOT present an honest account of their former beliefs. Thoughts?

I don’t believe that they can, no. Their own conversion process away from their former beliefs mitigates against that. I believe that they might be able to in regard to beliefs that they don’t actually have a problem with…or beliefs that they haven’t become actively averse to…but how can any observer know which those are? So, if we do not know where the bias is, or what facts might be presented accurately, any statement by an ex-member or an anti- MUST be confirmed by going to the primary source; the religion in question. Since that is true, why not just go to the primary source in the first place? Saves time and angst.

So, to be sure I have this straight…you are baptized for these dead people, and then they are somehow presented with the option of accepting the grace of that act or not. But the baptism has ALREADY occurred either way.

Correct?

Ah…I see. I understand that in the Catholic view (at least this is what has been rather heavily brought to bear upon me recently in this forum) that the baptism leaves an ‘indelible mark’ upon the soul, whether the person baptised gave his or her permission for this to be done or not; that’s why infant baptism WORKS, in your view.

However, we don’t believe that. We don’t believe that infants require baptism…and we also believe that baptism must be entered into willingly; with some understanding of right, and wrong, and what baptism is all about. If we refuse to baptise infants because we believe that people must enter into those waters willingly, then you can understand also that to us, the proxy work is of absolutely no effect until and unless it is accepted by the one for whom it is done. Therefore, no. the baptism has NOT 'already occurred either way." The OFFER was made; the work was done…but it’s not a ‘baptism’ until the person for whom it is done accepts it as such.

 

[ParkerD]

I don’t believe that they can, no. Their own conversion process away from their former beliefs mitigates against that. I believe that they might be able to in regard to beliefs that they don’t actually have a problem with…or beliefs that they haven’t become actively averse to…but how can any observer know which those are? So, if we do not know where the bias is, or what facts might be presented accurately, any statement by an ex-member or an anti- MUST be confirmed by going to the primary source; the religion in question. Since that is true, why not just go to the primary source in the first place? Saves time and angst.

Ah…I see. I understand that in the Catholic view (at least this is what has been rather heavily brought to bear upon me recently in this forum) that the baptism leaves an ‘indelible mark’ upon the soul, whether the person baptised gave his or her permission for this to be done or not; that’s why infant baptism WORKS, in your view.

However, we don’t believe that. We don’t believe that infants require baptism…and we also believe that baptism must be entered into willingly; with some understanding of right, and wrong, and what baptism is all about. If we refuse to baptise infants because we believe that people must enter into those waters willingly, then you can understand also that to us, the proxy work is of absolutely no effect until and unless it is accepted by the one for whom it is done. Therefore, no. the baptism has NOT 'already occurred either way." The OFFER was made; the work was done…but it’s not a ‘baptism’ until the person for whom it is done accepts it as such.

Dianaiad,
The insights expressed in these two comments are really spot on (as always, but these really hit the concepts on the head in a nutshell)–thank you!

 

[ParkerD]

I am sorry and I mean no disrespect, but I feel that you and the LDS faith have totally perverted the Sacred Scriptures. There is no way that anyone other than God can be omnipotent. It unsettles me to think that folks believe that they can become gods, equal to Christ, not a chance in all of eternity.

WM Scott,
Then that simply means that you don’t believe Christ spoke the truth or John wrote the truth. It is not “equal” in every sense of that word, since only He was the Divine Son of God born in the flesh to this world. No one else has that distinction. He is the rightful “heir” to the “throne” that John wrote about.

The New Testament speaks of becoming “joint heirs” with Christ. This means what it says. A “joint heir” receives what the “rightful heir” receives. That is why Christ was willing to come to this earth and suffer the infinite atonement–because He understood the plan of Heavenly Father that said through His personal suffering, we could be cleansed every whit and be able to be sanctified and have resurrected bodies that could live in the presence of God the Father and experience the “joy of thy lord.”

He loved us that much. Who can fathom it? Who can comprehend it? When Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 2:9 “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.” then Paul knew that the heart of man would not accept this possibility, but they are only revealed by God through “his Spirit”. That is why John wrote “let him hear what the Spirit saith”.

One will not understand it with a human capacity for understanding. It will seem like foolishness, just as those who scoff at the idea infer. It seems impossible from the human perspective–I agree with that.

 

[scipio337]

**

I am sorry and I mean no disrespect, but I feel that you and the LDS faith have totally perverted the Sacred Scriptures. There is no way that anyone other than God can be omnipotent. It unsettles me to think that folks believe that they can become gods, equal to Christ, not a chance in all of eternity.

Differences between Orthdox Christian “Theosis” and LDS “Exaltation”:

This is not from an “Anti” site, but the former FARMS:

Participation vs. Growth

The most profound difference between the doctrines of theosis and exaltation revolves around the way in which humans become divinized, or become gods. In the doctrine of theosis, divinization comes about through participation in the divine energies of the one divine nature, which divine nature is fully possessed by each of the three divine persons who comprise the Trinity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In the doctrine of exaltation, divinization comes about through growth of a capacity which is innate to the children born of Heavenly Parents—the Father and his eternal companion. This difference—the difference between participation and growth—can be rooted in two very different ontological understandings of divine nature and human nature.

The doctrine of theosis presupposes that there is a fundamental distinction between uncreated being and created being. God, that is, the three divine persons who are the one God, are understood to be uncreated and eternal. God always has been divine and always will be divine. Human persons, on the other hand, are created from nothing—creatio ex nihilo. They are forever dependent on God for existence. Thus, the divine nature, the nature of God, is fundamentally different from human nature, the nature of human persons. In fact, one can speak of an ontological divide or chasm separating the two: the former is unoriginate, the latter is originate.

The doctrine of exaltation presupposes that God is of the same species as human persons. There is no distinction between uncreated and created beings or persons since all persons, divine as well as human, are uncreated. In other words, intelligence, the core or essence of every person (whether divine or human) is self-existent and eternal, uncreated and uncreatable. Through the process of spirit birth, intelligences are clothed by divine parents with spirit bodies and become autonomous, conscious selves. And just as with human children in relation to their human parents, the spirit children of divine parents possess the innate capacity, as a fact of their spirit birth, to progress and grow up into the likeness of their divine parents.

Thus, for the doctrine of theosis, to become divine means to unite in one created person both his or her own created human nature and the uncreated divine energies of the three uncreated divine persons. In other words, a divinized human person never ceases to be created and human; but insofar as that person is divinized, he or she becomes through grace what he or she is not by nature—divine. Furthermore, to speak of divinization by the divine energies, as opposed to the divine essence, is meant to reflect the ontological distinction between uncreated and created. Only God—the three divine persons—is divine essentially. Only the persons of the Trinity are uncreated and eternal by fact of their nature. Human persons cannot become divine essentially because this would be a logical contradiction. What humans are in essence, by nature, is created and dependent. The divine energies are God himself insofar as he shares his uncreated nature with created persons, thus divinizing them. In this sense, the divinized person is always both created and uncreated, finite and infinite: created and finite by nature, uncreated and infinite by grace, by reason of union with God’s divinizing energies. The divinized person becomes all that God is except for identity in essence, which is to say, without ceasing to be created and finite.

In contrast, within the context of the doctrine of exaltation, there is no ontological divide or distinction between human and divine—divine and human do not refer to ontological categories.3 Instead, divine and human signify different levels of progression within a continuum. In other words, some uncreated intelligences have progressed to the point of godhood (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost), while other uncreated intelligences have not and are thus dependent on those who have already done so to attain godhood themselves (human persons). Thus, because humans and God already share a like essence, at some future time humans, as exalted beings, can become exactly as God now is.

mi.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=7&chapterID=63

Emphasis mine “Plurality of Gods” isn’t just an LDS doctrine, it’s an essential LDS doctrine.

What’s the use of your own planet and your harem of “plural wives” to repopulate if you aren’t divine?

 

[dianaiad]

Dianaiad-

I can easily imagine someone saying, “When I was a Baptist, I believed that baptizing infants was wrong based upon X, Y and Z.” And every Baptist listening would say, “Amen!” Then the person would say, “However, I came to realize that the Bible actually says A, B and C, and this led me to become a Catholic.” And every Catholic would say, “Amen!” Both positions were fairly represented, but the person makes a choice. So, it does seem possible for someone to be fair in their presentation. I happen to think that Steve Ray, Tim Staples and Jimmy Akin are pretty fair to their former Protestant traditions.

Do you see the difference between what you just said and what my claims were? You wrote; “When I was a Baptist ***I believed that baptizing infants was wrong based upon X,Y and Z.” *** There is a WORLD of difference between that, and saying “Baptists teach that this or that is true, and so they are all going to hell…”

You can’t quarrel with someone who says that “I believed…” or “I believe…” That’s personal–and always accurate.

That also never happens with ex’s and antis. If you don’t believe THAT, go check some of these sites out. None of them ever take responsibility for having believed anything. It’s never ‘I believed," but always: "They taught me’ (they probably didn’t,) or “They believe” (and ‘they’ probably don’t–at least you can’t trust it until you confirm it with whoever ‘they’ are).

All that said, it happens every day in this forum that an ex-Catholic makes some wacko statement about what he or she was taught when they were a child, and I ask “Where did you come up with that nonsense?”

And there you go, illustrating my point.

My opinion…and you wouldn’t expect anything other than this from me, would you?..is that Mormonism is pretty far “out there”, so when people leave, they have some amazing tales to tell…especially about the research into the earliest days of Smith, Young, Pratt and others. It’s my understanding that some of the more bizarre teachings from these guys no longer appear in the Church’s publications…but the oldest editions contained these things, and some copies still exist. The Watchtower edits its own publications, too.

Consequently, while I agree that checking your official publications is the best, comparing modern editions with the ancient editions of these documents yields some interesting results.

Not as much as you would like to present, m’friend. If we change something, we don’t hide that, or the reasons for it. For instance, the book “Mormon Doctrine” was changed from its original statements, because, well…it wasn’t actually Mormon Doctrine as presented at first. The author was told to fix it.

The problem here is this incredible disconnect between what actually IS, and what our opponents want ‘it’ to be. I KNOW that some of our leaders have speculated pretty broadly, and sometimes wildly, about quite a few things. The problem is the perception of what that MEANS in terms of doctrine. We claim (and since it IS our doctrine, what we say goes in this…) that our core doctrine is contained in the canonized works that we accept as scripture. That’s it. ANYthing else is ‘less.’ As in…not necessarily doctrine.

So taking something from the Journal of Discourses is going to leave us completely unimpressed. They contain some really neat stuff, and are wonderful insights into the thought processes of those that spoke, but they are not scripture. “Mormon Doctrine” by McConkie, isn’t scripture. Sorry about that…but if it ain’t scripture, it MAY contain doctrine, but not necessarily, and WE are the ones who get the final decision on that.

 

[ParkerD]

After reading this and all the other posts, yes the thread is very long, I have come to a conclusion.

The answer to the question, “Do LDS openly acknowledge that their religion teaches the belief of multiple gods?” is NO.

Mary JK,
Thanks very much for this post. And thanks again for your quote by Margaret Thatcher.

 

[ParkerD]

WM Scott,
Then that simply means that you don’t believe Christ spoke the truth or John wrote the truth. It is not “equal” in every sense of that word, since only He was the Divine Son of God born in the flesh to this world. No one else has that distinction. He is the rightful “heir” to the “throne” that John wrote about.

The New Testament speaks of becoming “joint heirs” with Christ. This means what it says. A “joint heir” receives what the “rightful heir” receives. That is why Christ was willing to come to this earth and suffer the infinite atonement–because He understood the plan of Heavenly Father that said through His personal suffering, we could be cleansed every whit and be able to be sanctified and have resurrected bodies that could live in the presence of God the Father and experience the “joy of thy lord.”

He loved us that much. Who can fathom it? Who can comprehend it? When Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 2:9 “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.” then Paul knew that the heart of man would not accept this possibility, but they are only revealed by God through “his Spirit”. That is why John wrote “let him hear what the Spirit saith”.

One will not understand it with a human capacity for understanding. It will seem like foolishness, just as those who scoff at the idea infer. It seems impossible from the human perspective–I agree with that.

Scipio,
You have reiterated my point about the reactions people have such as yours including the built in put-down against women, but thanks anyway for the acknowledgement that there is a belief in “theosis” among the Orthodox Catholics. I assume you have a strong disregard for the institution of marriage. Not surprising, since that is how you are evidently taught to view marriage.

 

[dianaiad]

Dianiaid,

Well, no. It is not “just semantics”, unless one happens to think that philosophy and theology are just semantics.

The question of homoousia is a very important one. Not only does it render orthodox Christians monotheists in the* technical sense*, but it has further consequences for how we see God.

Seeing as the Three Persons are of one single divine substance, this means that they are co-eternal, equally divine and equally worthy of worship. Whereas the LDS church, denying *homoousia *, leaves space open for the Son to be seen as a “created thing”, made not begotten, and likewise with the Holy Spirit. This also permits the Son to be less than equal in divinity, not having been so from the beginning.

Except, of course, that we do not see Christ in that way. We acknowledge His place as the Only Begotten Son of God, and yes, we do believe that He is ‘co-eternal’ with God. As the Second Member of the Godhead, His equality with His Father is unquestioned.

By the way, who was it that said, just yesterday I think…that ‘eternity’ doesn’t mean time, because Eternity is always now?" In that way, it doesn’t matter when (in terms of pure mortal thought) Jesus came into Being, does it? He is Eternal.

B]The createdness of the Son in LDS theology is probably what opens the door for the peculiar LDS doctrine of human deification. The Son is not essentially anything different than creation, although he is “God”. There is nothing stopping human beings from becoming other “Sons” in the very same sense.

You are quite right. There is not…but here you have a fundamental misunderstanding of LDS doctrine. We also believe that WE have always existed; eternal. We do not believe that we are ‘creations’ of God, but rather, His offspring.

Thus the singularity of Christ appears to be [ultimately] abolished.

It can not be legitimately called “one God”, when that God has different “parts”, ontologically distinct, some of whom existed at a time when others did not.

This has consequences for who and how we worship, the meaning of the Incarnation of the Son, ect.

Only if you concede that humans are created beings who have not also always existed. We don’t.

 

[wmscott]

WM Scott,
Then that simply means that you don’t believe Christ spoke the truth or John wrote the truth. It is not “equal” in every sense of that word, since only He was the Divine Son of God born in the flesh to this world. No one else has that distinction. He is the rightful “heir” to the “throne” that John wrote about.

The New Testament speaks of becoming “joint heirs” with Christ. This means what it says. A “joint heir” receives what the “rightful heir” receives. That is why Christ was willing to come to this earth and suffer the infinite atonement–because He understood the plan of Heavenly Father that said through His personal suffering, we could be cleansed every whit and be able to be sanctified and have resurrected bodies that could live in the presence of God the Father and experience the “joy of thy lord.”

He loved us that much. Who can fathom it? Who can comprehend it? When Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 2:9 “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.” then Paul knew that the heart of man would not accept this possibility, but they are only revealed by God through “his Spirit”. That is why John wrote “let him hear what the Spirit saith”.

One will not understand it with a human capacity for understanding. It will seem like foolishness, just as those who scoff at the idea infer. It seems impossible from the human perspective–I agree with that.

Oh, I believe what Christ taught and I know what the truth is, as Christ taught it. I just do not accept the truth, as you know it because it is from a man made point of view, Joseph Smith namely. I am 1000% committed to and love my beautiful Catholic faith and the fullness of truth as Christ taught it. Again, no disrespect, just incredible wonder at how so many folks can get something as basic as Gods truths so out in left field. Peace.

 

[ParkerD]

Oh, I believe what Christ taught and I know what the truth is, as Christ taught it. I just do not accept the truth, as you know it because it is from a man made point of view, Joseph Smith namely. I am 1000% committed to and love my beautiful Catholic faith and the fullness of truth as Christ taught it. Again, no disrespect, just incredible wonder at how so many folks can get something as basic as Gods truths so out in left field. Peace.

WM Scott,
Peace to you also. The truths I wrote about are straight from the Bible. Joseph Smith taught using the Bible, but that is neither here not there with respect to what John wrote and Paul wrote and the Savior taught. Those verses are in the Bible for all to see and read and think about.

Have a good day.

 

[dianaiad]

I admit I have never meet any human being who has never made an inaccurate statement in my life to to be sure.

I know I have made them and I am sure you have too…

Im sure I could find inaccurcies in your posts as well as mine if I were to take the time…

No one but Christ is perfect, huh?

Of course I have. However, I haven’t written an anti-something else book or publication claiming to educate everyone about some other faith, either. That’s the problem, y’know…

There is an old saying I made up. (well, it’s still old.) “Nobody has ever changed religions because his own has been sufficiently insulted.” Here’s another one that I’ll claim, because it LOOKS like it should be a truism but I’ve never seen anybody write it but me: “nothing cements an opinion like opposition to it.”

The problem with anti- and ex-member publications purporting to ‘expose’ the wrong beliefs of their old, or a different, faith is that if they get even the tiniest thing wrong, then nothing they get RIGHT matters: not to the members of the church they are attacking, anyway. Those publications are then seen as they actually are: mean spirited attacks to ‘get even,’ or to justify their own actions, or gain approval from their peers…but none of them are actually going to convert the believers; more likely, they will ensure that the believers become embittered and angry at all the attacks. They circle the wagons and either defend–or ignore.

In other words, those publications are self-serving and counterproductive. it seems to me that if anybody REALLY loved, and wanted the best for, the poor schlubs still stuck in whatever belief system is under attack, that the approach would be much different…shine a light on the hill; a beacon to the truth.

But what really happens with these sites and publications is that they build strawmen to attack, and hide their OWN beliefs under concrete boxes.

 

[scipio337]

Scipio,
You have reiterated my point about the reactions people have such as yours including the built in put-down against women, but thanks anyway for the acknowledgement that there is a belief in “theosis” among the Orthodox Catholics. I assume you have a strong disregard for the institution of marriage. Not surprising, since that is how you are evidently taught to view marriage.

You assume much.

I don’t consider “plural marriage” to be a valid form of the Sacrament instituted by God. If anything is misogynistic, it is that abhorrent practice that required not one, but two manifestos from LDS leadership.

 

[ParkerD]

You assume much.

I don’t consider “plural marriage” to be a valid form of the Sacrament instituted by God. If anything is misogynistic, it is that abhorrent practice that required not one, but two manifestos from LDS leadership.

Scipio,
You had used a word that was a put-down of women. It has to do with treating women as objects, as a possession. It came from your own mind, or you repeated what others have told you. I wasn’t saying you “hate women”. I was saying you used a word that has a connotation that either a marriage to one woman or to two women (in eternity, after this life) makes them a possession. I hope you understand that the LDS strongly disagree with that idea, as do I. Women are equal partners in the divinely-given institution of marriage. God had a plan in giving that relationship to humankind, and giving humankind family relationships.