LDS, contradictions in scripture and doctrine

[ParkerD]

I infer from this comment that you have quite a different understanding of the Trinity.

What do you mean when you say they are “One?” Do you mean they are consubstantial? Or do you mean they are of one purpose? Or do you mean something else entirely? I think your response is just dancing around the edges of the issue. Please explain what the LDS Church teaches its members about being “one” with the Father and the Son.

Hi, Robert in SD,

Not consubstantial, no. More than “of one purpose”. The best word is “One”. Jesus explained it in the best possible way, and it would be best to have His words in His language of that time and place, but I think the King James Version has a closer translation than the one you quoted, with some major differences in a few verses.

So, are you saying this supports the LDS church teaching that its members can become a god?

Yes, that passage talks about the power to glorify, and it is amplified in the book of Revelation.

… Maybe you could state in clear language - defining words that need defining - so we can all understand why it is there is such misunderstanding on this point between Mormons and non-Mormons, over what the LDS church teaches its members.

I know of no better language to describe the promised blessings than in John 17 and in the book of Revelation and in Matthew 25:21.

Again, why don’t you simply explain what it is the LDS church teaches its members about John 17, Revelation, and the blessings that come to those who overcome, and why the LDS teachings don’t contradict scripture? You’re not really supporting or clarifying the LDS position by simply saying… “read the bible.” You can assume all of us here do that.

As I stated, the best description is in the Bible, and Jesus and John were inspired to say or write exactly what were the best words to use, so it becomes a case of “saying something less effective” if I restate in different words or explanations than they used.

Peace,
Robert

Thanks, and peace to you also. I know I didn’t provide what you requested, but the words in the Bible give very direct meaning about what Jesus’ full mission is. For the Revelation passages (KJV), see Revelation 21:7; 3:21; 2:26, 27–and the words mean what they say.

 

[Telstar]

That is essentially our belief, not exact, but close enough. The ‘gospel of wussup’ (i.e., my opinion, worth essentially nothing) says that it is illogical that from nothing, came something. There is either an infinite amount of something, or there is nothing. By nothing, I mean no God, god, ‘intelligence’, an infinite amount of absolute nothing. 0x0=nothing… My understanding is there was God. God is ‘Something’, there was something. I believe that is syllogistically sound. Since there was something, there could be no such thing as nothing. I believe Catholics are so afraid of the taint of pantheism, they have a difficult time with this idea.

Before God created the universe and everything in it (i.e. all matter), He was alone. He is pure spirit, which means He is not made up of any kind of physical ‘material’. He does not have any form that we could ever fully understand. All we know about Him is what He has revealed to us through the prophets of the Old Testament and through Jesus, His Son. No one has ever seen the Father besides Jesus, no matter who tells you they have. Jesus is the Face of God. It’s impossible for any man to see the Father and live to tell about it (Stephen only saw Him just before he died). Even Moses only saw Him as a flame of fire in the burning bush, and even then, the whole experience turned his hair pure white.

Paul and I go back a few years. I hope he remembers my questions are not made to challenge the RC faith, but I truly try to be respectful of the doctrine. Please, I make no polemic points. Having said this, How can it be proven logically that God created something from nothing? I have read the Summa, and if it is addressed therein, I somehow missed it. I guess that would pretty much mean I didn’t read it all.

Maybe this explanation can help you to understand the concept of God as far as “Creation” is concerned.

Actually, this incorrect, taken in its totality. It is not inconsistent in LDS theology to have a ‘first cause’. The last discussion I heard from a GA I recall hearing that our Heavenly Father was the ‘first cause’. I say this somewhat in the RC sense meaning that God the Father was the creator of all (through Jesus Christ).
On the other hand, we do believe that spirit matter, that most basic ‘stuff’ can neither be created nor destroyed. In a sense we are co-eternal with the Father, but only in the same way you would say the Farmers manure is co-eternal with next years baby being born at St. Paul’s Hospital.

According to what LDS believe about God and creation, etc., there is no ‘first cause’ possible in that kind of philosophy. Their definition of what “God” is, defies there ever being a first cause, because everything in it is relative, and subject to other causes and effects.

Great question, and like many doctrines of RC faith, it is a mystery we may never know the answer to.

It’s a great question that no Mormon can ever answer, because they cannot find a first cause that could fit with all of their contradictory beliefs.

Dearest Paul, you have been watching the ‘Godmakers’ again, haven’t you. I thought we talked about that…no more ‘Godmakers’!
The above statement contains a little truth and a lot of fabrication and one really big falsehood. Yes, we believe we are born of spirit in a pre-existent life. This is Biblically sound doctrine. Yes, we believe we were sent to this mortal existence to accomplish two things, first to receive a physical body. Second, so we can learn faith in the Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The latter part is the most important. It is through our earthly trials and subsequent knowledge that we all fail and come short of the glory of God. It is only through faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, and acceptance of his extreme sacrifice atoning for all of our sins, that we become sanctified and enter into our Fathers Kingdom. It is a central tenet of LDS Doctrine that it is impossible for any of us to ‘obey all the rules’, i.e., no works of our own can help us with our salvation.

All of that is actually anything but sound Biblical doctrine. None of it can be found anywhere in the Bible without completely twisting whatever scripture is quoted as evidence. It’s all pure speculation based on the interpretations of LDS leaders, particularly those of Joseph Smith.

As Paul knows, the question is rhetorical. Who knew God could be so sardonic? Seems he has a sense of humor. (I am sure he is highly amused at watching me un-knot my line whilst fly fishing, sometimes I think he sends a little puff of wind at the most inopportune times just to watch me get frustrated.) There is NO savior but Jesus Christ, and only one Creator, the same. God is omniscient and he is not a liar.

So, you’re saying that God really was lying to Isaias, but He was just pulling his leg a little, so that makes it OK?

Rock, no man has become like God. NO man ever shall. Eve responded to the serpents temptation to partake of the fruit and gain the knowledge of Good and Evil, knowledge that was one of the attributes and the sole province of ‘the Gods’. The Bible, and LDS Theology does not believe Eve partook of the fruit so she could become a God.

You might want to double check LDS teachings, because they would certainly disagree with your first couple of statements. Mormon ‘exaltation’ is defined as the progression of all LDS men to godhood, if they are ‘worthy’ Mormons that perform all of the proper ‘ordinances’. We’ve already discussed the whole Adam and Eve situation, without coming to any real conclusion. But, I think the Bible would disagree with your assumption, at least from a Catholic perspective.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Not consubstantial, no. More than “of one purpose”. The best word is “One”. Jesus explained it in the best possible way, and it would be best to have His words in His language of that time and place, but I think the King James Version has a closer translation than the one you quoted, with some major differences in a few verses.

Parker. Thanks for the response, but you can’t really define a word by referring one back to the same word.
Parker:

Yes, that passage talks about the power to glorify, and it is amplified in the book of Revelation.

I’m not sure how you get the LDS doctrine of exaltation (exhaltation, exhultation?) from that passage. You haven’t really explained the meaning, except by simply pointing to the langauge itself. Can you please articulate how you reason from the plain language of the text to the LDS conclusion?
Parker:

I know of no better language to describe the promised blessings than in John 17 and in the book of Revelation and in Matthew 25:21.

It’s not really much of an answer to simply point one back to the language of the passage. Because the scripture is not explicitly stating that one becomes a god as the LDS church teaches. So, how do you reason to that conclusion?
Parker:

As I stated, the best description is in the Bible, and Jesus and John were inspired to say or write exactly what were the best words to use, so it becomes a case of “saying something less effective” if I restate in different words or explanations than they used.

Again, there’s nothing in the bible that explicitly teaches the LDS doctrine regarding exhaltation. So, making vague referece to scripture passages is not a convincing argument. I can tell that you’ve accepted the LDS teaching, but you really have provided no reasoned explanation from scripture for your belief. Indeed, you have never addressed the contradictions that were cited at the beginning of the post.
Parker:

Thanks, and peace to you also. I know I didn’t provide what you requested, but the words in the Bible give very direct meaning about what Jesus’ full mission is. For the Revelation passages (KJV), see Revelation 21:7; 3:21; 2:26, 27–and the words mean what they say.

I agree that the bible is clear in what it teaches. But what I do not see is the unique teachings of the LDS church.

Peace,
Robert

 

[ParkerD]

Parker. Thanks for the response, but you can’t really define a word by referring one back to the same word.

I’m not sure how you get the LDS doctrine of exaltation (exhaltation, exhultation?) from that passage. You haven’t really explained the meaning, except by simply pointing to the langauge itself. Can you please articulate how you reason from the plain language of the text to the LDS conclusion?

It’s not really much of an answer to simply point one back to the language of the passage. Because the scripture is not explicitly stating that one becomes a god as the LDS church teaches. So, how do you reason to that conclusion?

Again, there’s nothing in the bible that explicitly teaches the LDS doctrine regarding exhaltation. So, making vague referece to scripture passages is not a convincing argument. I can tell that you’ve accepted the LDS teaching, but you really have provided no reasoned explanation from scripture for your belief. Indeed, you have never addressed the contradictions that were cited at the beginning of the post.

I agree that the bible is clear in what it teaches. But what I do not see is the unique teachings of the LDS church.

Peace,
Robert

Robert,

Here are the descriptive words, and to me they mean “be glorified to be like God the Son” and to you they don’t, and I can’t change that:

Be “one” with the Father and the Son (and the Holy Ghost as Rock17 noted from the Book of Mormon").

Be made a “ruler over many things” by Jesus and Heavenly Father, and enter into their same joy (the joy of thy lord).

Be made a “joint-heir” with Christ. (Romans 8:17)

“When he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. Every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.” (1 John 3:2, 3) His purity and goodness and perfection enable that He lives with the Father in complete unity with Him. We either “hope in him”, or we don’t–it is a choice one can make.

Be given “power over the nations” and to “rule them with a rod of iron” (which means to rule them in perfect righteousness and justice). (Rev. 2:26, 27)

“Sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne”. (3:23) (Note that John emphasizes “he that hath an ear”–meaning a spiritually attuned ear–let him hear what the Spirit sayeth.)

“Inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son” (just like Jesus is His Son, and inherited all things). (Rev. 20:7)

The words are explicit. They can be understood at face value, with no need to explain them away or lessen their importance or make them “not possible” just because someone doesn’t believe Jesus could have the power given to Him by the Father to make them possible.

Peace to you also, and a wish for a Merry and blessed Christmas.

 

[Telstar]

Here are the descriptive words, and to me they mean “be glorified to be like God the Son” and to you they don’t, and I can’t change that:

Parker,

The key to our understanding everything that Jesus said during His prayer in the Garden of Gethsemani is certainly found in that line, and more specifically in that one word. The LDS seem to base their entire belief system on the concept of the ‘glorification’ of man (that they define as exaltation). Can you tell me how you define ‘glory’ as it’s often used throughout the Bible? What exactly is the ‘glory’ of God, in your way of thinking? What effect does glory have on a resurrected body? I only ask because I don’t think it has the same meaning for LDS, as it has for Catholics or some other Christians. I tend to believe that most people really don’t understand what it means, at all.

 

[TexanKnight]

Finally found it. I remember reading a fascinating explanation by Aquinas; I know this is an affront to the RC, but the LDS lay claim to these keys as well.

To an extant you are correct. Technically, the priesthood never left (as per scripture), however, it was restored in the sense that worthy men of age were ordained to the priesthood as a matter of Church function.

Ah…so then you believe the Apostle John was incredibly disobedient to Christ? John was ordered to go forth and Baptize…to bring people into the Church. So, you believe that John, after obeying Christ for a few years, decided to take a 1500-year vacation?

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is RC doctrine that God is the Eternal God, everlasting to everlasting, always existing. If He exists forever, than there was always God. God is certainly not nothing, He is ‘something’, therefore something has always existed. It is my contention the existence of ‘nothing’ is impossible. For example, do you not agree that the love of God permeates all?

“do you not agree” is a negative question and unanswerable. What is your point?

 

[wussup]

Before God created the universe and everything in it (i.e. all matter), He was alone. He is pure spirit, which means He is not made up of any kind of physical ‘material’.

What is pure spirit? Two options, either it is ‘something’, albeit unknown, or ‘nothing’. I really don’t think you think the ‘pure spirit’ of God is ‘nothing’.

He does not have any form that we could ever fully understand. All we know about Him is what He has revealed to us through the prophets of the Old Testament and through Jesus, His Son. No one has ever seen the Father besides Jesus, no matter who tells you they have. Jesus is the Face of God. It’s impossible for any man to see the Father and live to tell about it (Stephen only saw Him just before he died).

In LDS Theology, all things are possible to God. So, in LDS Theology, if God wanted to show himself to a mortal earthly man (that being all but Jesus), he could. I was under the impression RC Theology also thought all things were possible to God.

According to what LDS believe about God and creation, etc., there is no ‘first cause’ possible in that kind of philosophy. Their definition of what “God” is, defies there ever being a first cause, because everything in it is relative, and subject to other causes and effects.

Not true. A falsehood. Hope you repent.

So, you’re saying that God really was lying to Isaias, but He was just pulling his leg a little, so that makes it OK?

No. I did not say God was lying. Please to refrain from putting words in my mouth. I say enough on my own to get me in trouble. Neither did I say he was pulling Isaiah’s leg. Since I said neither of these things, the last statement follows to be in error. Please reread what I said. Maybe it would help to look up the word ‘sardonic’. I think he was being disdainful of those who say “I [am] the LORD’S; and another shall call [himself] by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe [with] his hand unto the LORD, and surname [himself] by the name of Israel”. How would you characterize the rhetorical question posed by the LORD?

…so then you believe the Apostle John was incredibly disobedient to Christ? John was ordered to go forth and Baptize…to bring people into the Church. So, you believe that John, after obeying Christ for a few years, decided to take a 1500-year vacation?

“do you not agree” is a negative question and unanswerable. What is your point?

No, I do not believe that. I could then ask a ridiculous counter question such as 'but I was unaware the RC believed John has been baptizing for the last 1500 years (implying that for the first approx. 450 years he was obedient and was baptizing), but that would be just as ridiculous. As per the previous fellow, look back to what I said.

Of course it can be answered. There are two. Either the answer is ‘yes’, the love of God permeates all; or ‘no’, the love of God does not permeate all.

Deep sigh…Folks, this putting words in mouth and attributing ridiculous beliefs in my head that I am not saying is very undignified. My sainted Granny, a Baptist truth be told, used to say you can shoot more bears by baiting with honey than you can baiting with…actually, I can’t finish the quote she said, being a randy old lady, but you can figure it out.

I confess to being confused. If you are trying to proselyte me, I suggest being kind, considerate, and give me an alternative faith to one you feel I am misguided in believing. However, if you want to bible bash me with ridiculous rhetoric, innuendo, and rudeness…well, I am here to learn from the RC, not be bashed.

The question I thought we were addressing was, did something exist from which we were made eternally. The LDS position is yes, something did exist eternally. I am seeking the RC alternative. It seems the RC concept is something like nothing existed, but we’ll call it God, and this nothing created existence from nothing. I don’t mean to sound sarcastic, but that is the answer it appears I am being given. Frankly, as an investigator into the RC, this is not a very sound argument.

Finally, contrary to what seems to be the main opinion here, the LDS do not have an answer for all questions. Some questions are a mystery and the knowledge of how or what many aspects of the Gospel are are frankly unknowable. The RC holds the same position regarding many aspects of its theology. After all, both are systems of faith.

 

[TexanKnight]

No, I do not believe that. I could then ask a ridiculous counter question such as 'but I was unaware the RC believed John has been baptizing for the last 1500 years (implying that for the first approx. 450 years he was obedient and was baptizing), but that would be just as ridiculous. As per the previous fellow, look back to what I said.

Ah, but we do not believe John did not die…YOU DO. So your ridiculous question would also be irrelevant. YOU Believe he lived forever. He was ordered to Baptize and preach to all Nations, but, according to you, there was an apostasy. The two ideas do not gel. IF he was alive all these years and IF he was obeying Christ and baptizing all nations, THEN THERE COULD BE NO APOSTASY

Deep sigh…Folks, this putting words in mouth and attributing ridiculous beliefs in my head that I am not saying is very undignified.

No one has done that, dear sir. There is truly no need to play victim here. We know you love God, even if we believe you are misguided.

I confess to being confused. If you are trying to proselyte me, I suggest being kind, considerate, and give me an alternative faith to one you feel I am misguided in believing. However, if you want to bible bash me with ridiculous rhetoric, innuendo, and rudeness…well, I am here to learn from the RC, not be bashed.

Christ instructed to teach all nations. He instructed to correct error. In 2Timothy, He instructed us to “proclaim the Word. Be persistent whether it be convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching.” That is what we are doing. Paul also warns us, again, in 2Timothy, that “the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine, but follow their own desires…” We believe Joseph Smith did this very thing. We are not bashing. In truth, we love all our brothers and sisters. But we MUST “convince, reprimand, and encourage.”

The question I thought we were addressing was, did something exist from which we were made eternally. The LDS position is yes, something did exist eternally. I am seeking the RC alternative. It seems the RC concept is something like nothing existed, but we’ll call it God, and this nothing created existence from nothing. I don’t mean to sound sarcastic, but that is the answer it appears I am being given. Frankly, as an investigator into the RC, this is not a very sound argument.

Wrong., We believe God, who is something, existed eternally. The alpha and omega. The LDS position is less acceptable…that water became steel…that dirt became diamond…I am speaking of the belief that sinful man became God. That is untenable. As an investigator to LDS, this is not a very sound argument.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,

The key to our understanding everything that Jesus said during His prayer in the Garden of Gethsemani is certainly found in that line, and more specifically in that one word. The LDS seem to base their entire belief system on the concept of the ‘glorification’ of man (that they define as exaltation). Can you tell me how you define ‘glory’ as it’s often used throughout the Bible? What exactly is the ‘glory’ of God, in your way of thinking? What effect does glory have on a resurrected body? I only ask because I don’t think it has the same meaning for LDS, as it has for Catholics or some other Christians. I tend to believe that most people really don’t understand what it means, at all.

Telstar,

I left your quote as is, but note that the prayer described is the Intercessory prayer, which Jesus spoke in the presence of the apostles as recorded in John 17, then John 18 tells of Him going to the garden of Gethsemane after that.

I would strongly disagree with the word “glorification”–I don’t think it has the same connotation as what Paul wrote about when he wrote “to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” (Romans 8:30) He also wrote “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 8:17)

The “glory” of God is described in many ways, and some of those are “light, truth, love, holiness, godliness”. Each time it is described it would be important to note that description as part of the complete meaning of the word in the Bible. The Intercessory prayer would be central to understanding its meaning as relates to Jesus Christ, God the Father, and humankind who have the opportunity to become “joint-heirs” and thus be “glorified”.

A resurrected body will receive the “glory” that the person prepared to receive through their having lived by truth, light, sanctification by the Holy Ghost through personal repentance, love for God and for others, and how much they love what God loves and showed that by how they lived and what they loved.

 

[Telstar]

What is pure spirit? Two options, either it is ‘something’, albeit unknown, or ‘nothing’. I really don’t think you think the ‘pure spirit’ of God is ‘nothing’.

There’s an immense difference between spirit and matter. They’re not interchangeable. Spirit is never a physical thing, any more than a thought is. God is God. He doesn’t require anything else to exist, but everything that exists depends on God to continue to exist. If He stopped ‘thinking’ about all that He created for even a fraction of a second of ‘time’ (which He created), all of it would immediately cease to exist, and He would be alone, again. Did you read the link?

In LDS Theology, all things are possible to God. So, in LDS Theology, if God wanted to show himself to a mortal earthly man (that being all but Jesus), he could. I was under the impression RC Theology also thought all things were possible to God.

All things are possible, but not everything is necessary for man to know about God, except what we need to know. Some things are mysteries to test our faith. St. Thomas said he would only believe if he could put his fingers in the holes in Jesus’ resurrected body. Jesus told him it would be better for those that would believe without seeing. When the Pharisees looked for a sign, Jesus said they wouldn’t get one.

Not true. A falsehood. Hope you repent.

Prove me wrong and I will.

No. I did not say God was lying. Please to refrain from putting words in my mouth. ~~~ How would you characterize the rhetorical question posed by the LORD?

God stated there was no God except Him. At that time, many men claimed there were other gods (they still do). God said He was “the first and the last” (the Alpha and the Omega). He repeated it in the Apocalypse. If you claim God was not speaking the absolute truth, then you really are accusing Him of lying. No?

No, I do not believe that. I could then ask a ridiculous counter question such as 'but I was unaware the RC believed John has been baptizing for the last 1500 years (implying that for the first approx. 450 years he was obedient and was baptizing), but that would be just as ridiculous. As per the previous fellow, look back to what I said.

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that John the Evangelist is still alive. LDS do. If he is, then it’s a logical assumption that he disobeyed Jesus, and did not do as he was told.

Of course it can be answered. There are two. Either the answer is ‘yes’, the love of God permeates all; or ‘no’, the love of God does not permeate all.

The love of God has nothing to do with the subject. But, if nothing else exists, then God’s love is His Own, with no one to share it with the Father, except the Son and the Holy Spirit (They are One). They were perfectly happy alone, before the universe and everything in it was created. They would be perfectly happy to share their love within the Trinity, if nothing else was ever created.

Deep sigh…Folks, this putting words in mouth and attributing ridiculous beliefs in my head that I am not saying is very undignified. My sainted Granny, a Baptist truth be told, used to say you can shoot more bears by baiting with honey than you can baiting with…actually, I can’t finish the quote she said, being a randy old lady, but you can figure it out.

No one is putting words in your mouth. We’re merely showing you where your Bible interpretations are faulty (from our view), and where LDS beliefs are inconsistent with scripture. When you avoid answering questions, or only answer them with unrelated questions, then you’re giving us the impression that you’re not willing to have an honest give and take discussion of the subject.

I confess to being confused. If you are trying to proselyte me, I suggest being kind, considerate, and give me an alternative faith to one you feel I am misguided in believing. However, if you want to bible bash me with ridiculous rhetoric, innuendo, and rudeness…well, I am here to learn from the RC, not be bashed.

No one here is proselytizing anyone else. We’re just having a discussion of our differences in doctrine and beliefs. Both sides are asking questions, but sometimes the answers make no sense to us and need clarification. The purpose is to find the differences and contradictions, and to see if there’s any way to reconcile them to what the other side believes. I admit, that sometimes we (I) can be a little ‘intense’ in our discussions, but there’s no intent to ‘bash’ anyone.

The question I thought we were addressing was, did something exist from which we were made eternally. The LDS position is yes, something did exist eternally. I am seeking the RC alternative. It seems the RC concept is something like nothing existed, but we’ll call it God, and this nothing created existence from nothing. I don’t mean to sound sarcastic, but that is the answer it appears I am being given. Frankly, as an investigator into the RC, this is not a very sound argument.

We already answered. Nothing material existed before God created it from a ‘void’ (vacuum). Read the link.

Finally, contrary to what seems to be the main opinion here, the LDS do not have an answer for all questions. Some questions are a mystery and the knowledge of how or what many aspects of the Gospel are are frankly unknowable. The RC holds the same position regarding many aspects of its theology. After all, both are systems of faith.

There are many mysteries, but basic things need to have definitive answers. Many LDS beliefs are so far from what scripture says, that it’s amazing to me that Joseph Smith claimed that “plain and precious things” were removed, while he twisted the simplest things to mean something so far fetched.

 

[SteveVH]

Hi, Robert in SD,

Not consubstantial, no. More than “of one purpose”. The best word is “One”. Jesus explained it in the best possible way, and it would be best to have His words in His language of that time and place, but I think the King James Version has a closer translation than the one you quoted, with some major differences in a few verses.

Parker, there are many places in the New Testament that speak to the subject of being one with God. Jesus uses the analogy of the vine and the branches, for instance. We are the branches, Jesus is the vine. We are not the vine. there is a difference. The branches cannot exist without the vine. If they are separated from the vine they wither and die. Paul spoke about the Church as the body of Christ. Christ is the head, we are the body. The body can do nothing without the head. We become “one” with God through our baptism. We are brought into the body of Christ and are therefore one with him.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, there are many places in the New Testament that speak to the subject of being one with God. Jesus uses the analogy of the vine and the branches, for instance. We are the branches, Jesus is the vine. We are not the vine. there is a difference. The branches cannot exist without the vine. If they are separated from the vine they wither and die. Paul spoke about the Church as the body of Christ. Christ is the head, we are the body. The body can do nothing without the head. We become “one” with God through our baptism. We are brought into the body of Christ and are therefore one with him.

SteveVH,

I noticed your post to me, and only have a moment to respond briefly. First, if you have understood differently than the very pertinent and important major belief that Christ is and will always be central to any “power over the nations” or “ruler over many things” that is granted through His grace, then you have misunderstood. He is the vine, we are the branches, and that will always be so.

If I have time later, I’ll respond further, but here is the passage you noted from John 15 which teaches many very important lessons about what the Savior desires for our relationship with Him and with our Father in Heaven:

John 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.

9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.

10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.

11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.

12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Robert,

Here are the descriptive words, and to me they mean “be glorified to be like God the Son” and to you they don’t, and I can’t change that:

You aren’t really presenting an argument here. You are jumping to conclusions based on a handful of passages - none of which support the exhaltation process that the LDS Church describes, wherein our nature is altered from human to divine. Yes we will be one with Christ, but that means sharing in his divinity, not obtaining for ourselves a divinity that replaces that unity in Christ.
Parker:

Be “one” with the Father and the Son (and the Holy Ghost as Rock17 noted from the Book of Mormon").

Since I’m not convinced the BoM is divinely inspired, I can’t accept this as any basis for argument.
Parker:

Be made a “joint-heir” with Christ. (Romans 8:17)

“Joint” heir, as opposed to separate heir. In other words, our inheritence - whatever it may be - comes to us because of our union with Him. This is not a promise of becoming a god.

“When he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. Every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.” (1 John 3:2, 3) His purity and goodness and perfection enable that He lives with the Father in complete unity with Him. We either “hope in him”, or we don’t–it is a choice one can make.

This passages speaks of God’s nature abiding in us. It does not speak of our nature being altered: “No one born of God commits sin; for God’s nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God. By this it may be seen who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not do right is not of God, nor he who does not love his brother.” (1 John:9-10)
Parker:

Be given “power over the nations” and to “rule them with a rod of iron” (which means to rule them in perfect righteousness and justice). (Rev. 2:26, 27)

One need not be a god to rule over a nation. Moreover, if one is made a god, then he could not remain to rule over the nations of this earth… because this earth is the earth of Heavenly Father, not any new gods he may exhalt, correct?

“Sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne”. (3:23) (Note that John emphasizes “he that hath an ear”–meaning a spiritually attuned ear–let him hear what the Spirit sayeth.)

I know many spiritually attuned ears that do not “hear” the LDS doctrine of exhaltation in these passages? You may know many who do, but that really is nothing upon which an argument can be based.

“Inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son” (just like Jesus is His Son, and inherited all things). (Rev. 20:7)

This passages speaks only about sharing in the new heaven and the new earth at the end of days. It does not say that those who perservere will become divine personages, with worlds of their own to rule. Indeed, the passage speaks only of a new Heaven and a New Earth. It does not speak of a Heavenly Father who is going to hand out godhood and a planet for each good LDS person to rule over.
Parker:

The words are explicit. They can be understood at face value, with no need to explain them away or lessen their importance or make them “not possible” just because someone doesn’t believe Jesus could have the power given to Him by the Father to make them possible.

No. They are not explicit. That’s your problem. You seem to think they can be given only the meaning your faith teaches; but that is not the case.

Christmas Peace,
Robert

 

[ParkerD]

You aren’t really presenting an argument here. You are jumping to conclusions based on a handful of passages - none of which support the exhaltation process that the LDS Church describes, wherein our nature is altered from human to divine. Yes we will be one with Christ, but that means sharing in his divinity, not obtaining for ourselves a divinity that replaces that unity in Christ…
Christmas Peace,
Robert

Robert in SD,

Somehow both your post and SteveVH’s post show a misunderstanding that I think you must have picked up by reading what other would like people to believe about Latter-day Saint beliefs, but which are incorrect. The words “replaces that unity in Christ” are completely incorrect as to Latter-day Saint beliefs.

Christ’s grace in its fullness doesn’t lead to “replacing unity in Christ”–it leads to His being able to advocate for those who became His covenant believers and followers and who thus became among “he that overcometh” (as John saw in vision), so that they are accepted into complete unity with Him and with the Father. How in the world that can be perceived as “replacing the unity in Christ” is beyond me to figure out how that could be the misunderstanding, other than to want to have a misunderstanding for self-justification (which indeed often happens).

As I noted before, the Bible is beloved by the Latter-day Saints–as the richest treasure on earth–, and one of the things I marvel at is the way the Lord, Jesus Christ preserved free will choice while also teaching eternal truths and eternal opportunities. Some scoff at those opportunities, and that shows all the more that Jesus was indeed perfect in His ability to present truth in a way that did not force or obligate, but allowed true, heart-felt choice.

Peace and Merry Christmas to you also.