Questions for Mormons..

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson,
Peace to you as you think about these answers and your questions.

Yes. One could say They have the “substance” that makes Them God, which is omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and complete perfection in every sense. They have a unified intent for humankind and for the universe.

Yes, as resurrected Beings with the “substance” of being God, They have the same nature. They both have perfect bodies with tangible presence. Man was created in the actual “image” of God the Father.

Since They are omnipotent, by definition They are equals and have complete unity in Their Will.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. He created the earth as the “Word”. (See John 1)

These are two very different questions. Jesus suffered for the sins of all humankind throughout time. The “goal” of becoming “like Christ” in the kind of Oneness that He has with the Father, was available to people in OT times but it was a distant goal and would not be able to be attained until after Christ’s mission on earth and much later in eternal time as they continued to learn and progress.

The answer to your second question is absolutely not, neither before Jesus nor until a very long time thereafter continuing to learn, grow, and progress in the spirit world or as resurrected beings.

A follow up…did anyone achieve “godhood” prior to the resurrection of Christ? Or was the Heavenly Father (do you call Him God?) the only God prior to the resurrection?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes.

Yes.

No. Jesus is subordinate to Heavenly Father.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Some of them, yes. In the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord informs us that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are now gods.

No. Jesus was God before the world was made.

You and Parker gave different answers to some of my questions…could you guys work this out and tell me what the official answer is?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Some of them, yes. In the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord informs us that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are now gods.Okay, but were they gods before Jesus’ resurrection, or did they have to wait for that?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Another follow up for Parker and Zerinus:

Were there gods of other planets or solar systems prior to the resurrection of Jesus or have all gods been dependent upon this event (with the exception of the Heavenly Father, of course.)?

Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Charlotte,
Now you see why your questions didn’t get answered right away. Paul was once LDS, and had the beliefs he stated here, I suppose (don’t know). I don’t have those beliefs in terms of thinking I would ever expect to be “worshipped”, but I do look forward to being able to love as God loves and have the joy of creativity and the joy of vast knowledge and living in Their presence and feeling Their joy. This is what is meant by inheriting a throne as described in the book of Revelation. Christ was willing to come to earth and suffer to provide us the possibility of inheriting the throne that He rightfully inherits. It’s not a meager plan–it is vast.

Parker-

I’m not trying to pick a fight on this issue, but I don’t think Paul is alone in this regard.

It seems that lots of ex-Mormons have written extensively, and many of them were older people coming from families who were Mormon for several generations.

How is it that older ex-Mormons present a common view of what they were taught that is at odds with what you seem to be presenting?

Has the doctrine changed, or were these folks (Paul included) simply misinformed about the the LDS really taught?

 

[dianaiad]

Diana’s opinions do not reflect mainstream, historical Mormonism.

Yes they do.

They are certainly more likely to 'represent mainstream, historical Mormonism" than your declarations of what we really believe, Paul.

With all due respect.

Most Mormons believe they will rule over planets populated bu their spirit offspring. The reason for this belief? It was taught frankly and openly for 160 years by their prophets and apostles. Here is an example: (quote inserted here)

“The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fullness of his kingdom. In other words we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fullness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring. We will have an endless eternity for this.”

Interesting quote, and interesting eisegesis you are using. Let us look at this closely. “We will have the privilege of becoming like him.” Meaning, we will become like God the Father. Who created the universe, and according to the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Moses 1;33…*And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.
*

Here is what we have from that quote: We will become like God the Father, who we (and you, by the way) believe created the entire universe. “Worlds without number,” for his purposes.

He sent us to this earth, to live mortal lives and do whatever it is He wants us to do. Is there anything at all in that quote that limits GOD to the rulership of this earth only? Because the only way you can interpret this statement as limiting US to the rulership only of one planet is to do the same with God the Father.

Not even you, Paul, can claim that Mormons believe that God did not create the entire universe, or ever did believe that.

He DID, however, send us to ‘an earth,’ THIS one. What President Smith said was that, just as God the Father sent us to an earth, so might we send our own children to an earth someday. There is nothing in that statement that restricts us to the rulership of that earth, any more than God the Father is restricted to the rulership of THIS one.

You are quite free, however, to find something in that text that supports your point. Good luck with that.

Again. whether they will admit it to us “gentiles” or not, the vast majority of Mormons still believe that if they are faithful, they will be gods ruling over planets populated by their own spirit offspring, who will worship them as God, the same as they worship their “Heavenly Father”.

Paul, you are smarter than this. I have just shown you that your interpretation can’t be supported by the text, in any way.

Remember, Mormons consistently lie about what they and other LDS believe. They want to seem innocuous so that you will not fear to let the missionaries in.

Forewarned is forearmed.

Oh, now there is an ironic statement by a man who just gave us a quote and claimed that it was absolute proof of a position we don’t hold—when it was precisely the opposite of that.

 

[dianaiad]

Parker-

I’m not trying to pick a fight on this issue, but I don’t think Paul is alone in this regard.

It seems that lots of ex-Mormons have written extensively, and many of them were older people coming from families who were Mormon for several generations.

How is it that older ex-Mormons present a common view of what they were taught that is at odds with what you seem to be presenting?

Has the doctrine changed, or were these folks (Paul included) simply misinformed about the the LDS really taught?

Oh, gee, what would you call 60 years old, Randy, teen aged?

That’s how old I am…or will be on Monday, anyway. I am a fifth generation Mormon, Idaho born, Utah raised, California educated–and I still believe. I manage to keep up my studies, knowing precisely what we do believe, y’see…

Whereas Paul and the other ex-Mormons who feel impelled to do battle with us spend their time looking up things to justify their leaving. They aren’t a bit interested in what our beliefs actually are; that is counterproductive to their purposes. They are interested only in presenting our beliefs in as negative a manner as possible. Even if it means lying—or presenting a quote as if it proves one point when it in fact does nothing of the sort, knowing that many people won’t call them on it.

Or that those who agree with him aren’t interested in calling him on it. They do not want him to be wrong. It’s not in their interest.

However, I can’t help but wonder why people do that. If Paul has to use a quote that does NOT support his point, and presents it as if it does, why? Can’t he find something that actually, y’know, DOES support his claim?

I can only consider that…no. He can’t.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes they do.

They are certainly more likely to 'represent mainstream, historical Mormonism" than your declarations of what we really believe, Paul.

With all due respect.

Interesting quote, and interesting eisegesis you are using. Let us look at this closely. “We will have the privilege of becoming like him.” Meaning, we will become like God the Father. Who created the universe, and according to the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Moses 1;33…*And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. *

Here is what we have from that quote: We will become like God the Father, who we (and you, by the way) believe created the entire universe. “Worlds without number,” for his purposes.

He sent us to this earth, to live mortal lives and do whatever it is He wants us to do. Is there anything at all in that quote that limits GOD to the rulership of this earth only? Because the only way you can interpret this statement as limiting US to the rulership only of one planet is to do the same with God the Father.

Not even you, Paul, can claim that Mormons believe that God did not create the entire universe, or ever did believe that.

He DID, however, send us to ‘an earth,’ THIS one. What President Smith said was that, just as God the Father sent us to an earth, so might we send our own children to an earth someday. There is nothing in that statement that restricts us to the rulership of that earth, any more than God the Father is restricted to the rulership of THIS one.

You are quite free, however, to find something in that text that supports your point. Good luck with that.

Paul, you are smarter than this. I have just shown you that your interpretation can’t be supported by the text, in any way.

Oh, now there is an ironic statement by a man who just gave us a quote and claimed that it was absolute proof of a position we don’t hold—when it was precisely the opposite of that.

Dianaiad-

I don’t want to get into the middle of an intramural squabble since I have never been connected with the LDS in any way.

I would like to ask a simple question: When you die, will you become god of your own planet (or would your husband)?

Your quote from President Smith above seems to suggest that you might or that you might send your children to “an earth” (presumably not THIS earth).

If so, who will be god of that planet…you or the Heavenly Father? Or will there be some sort of power-sharing arrangement as there may be between the Father and Jesus on THIS earth.

Help me out here…

Oh…one other question…what happens if your husband apostatizes and leaves the LDS church? Do you have to divorce him or risk losing your salvation?

 

[ParkerD]

Parker-

I’m not trying to pick a fight on this issue, but I don’t think Paul is alone in this regard.

It seems that lots of ex-Mormons have written extensively, and many of them were older people coming from families who were Mormon for several generations.

How is it that older ex-Mormons present a common view of what they were taught that is at odds with what you seem to be presenting?

Has the doctrine changed, or were these folks (Paul included) simply misinformed about the the LDS really taught?

Randy Carson,

It is human nature to speculate. (People do that in our church, sometimes in a Sunday School class or in private.) It is also human nature, when one person is trying to “prove” that they are right and another person is wrong, to build their case using whatever logic suits them. I am an “old” Mormon (age 54) with four past generations in the LDS church, and I have never heard it taught that inheriting a throne like Christ inherits His throne, means that I will be worshipped in the sense that Heavenly Father is the object of all of our worship. I have never felt like the doctrines have been clarified as to how the hereafter will be organized with respect to spirit offsprings’ relationship to us as compared with their relationship to Heavenly Father and the Savior.

We know that the Savior is the same Savior for a vast number of worlds, from the past and from the future. How that all works and what it means in detail, I simply don’t know. I also don’t feel I need to know at the present time. This life is wonderful, full of learning experiences. There is much to learn here and now. Why speculate about what happens in two thousand years from now (or whatever time it may take)? I still like the book of Revelation as the single best source of understanding about Christ’s promises to the faithful–to those who “overcome” (“he that overcometh shall inherit all things”).

 

[Religio71]

LDS do not tend to focus on “getting planets”, as the focus is more on exaltation, which is becoming co-heirs in Christ, and thus becoming like God the Father through Christ. Through exaltation, they will have everything the Father has. They will also have spirit children, as the Heavenly Father and the Heavenly Mother have (i.e. us). To be exalted, one has to fully follow the “restored Gospel”, or the LDS faith. This also includes being going to the temple, which means you have to be endowed and sealed (eternally married) to be exalted.

lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-59,00.html

Here is one interesting quote:

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=12a3cb7a29c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

*"To live in the highest part of the celestial kingdom is called exaltation or eternal life. To be able to live in this part of the celestial kingdom, people must have been married in the temple and must have kept the sacred promises they made in the temple. They will receive everything our Father in Heaven has and will become like Him. They will even be able to have spirit children and make new worlds for them to live on, and do all the things our Father in Heaven has done. People who are not married in the temple may live in other parts of the celestial kingdom, but they will not be exalted." **

 

[dianaiad]

Dianaiad-

I don’t want to get into the middle of an intramural squabble since I have never been connected with the LDS in any way.

I would like to ask a simple question: When you die, will you become god of your own planet (or would your husband)?

No. I think I just illustrated that.

Your quote from President Smith above seems to suggest that you might or that you might send your children to “an earth” (presumably not THIS earth).

If so, who will be god of that planet…you or the Heavenly Father? Or will there be some sort of power-sharing arrangement as there may be between the Father and Jesus on THIS earth.

Help me out here…

Y’know, we don’t know. Here is what I DO know. We are promised that we MIGHT become heirs and joint-heirs with Christ, and have everything He does.

Here’s what we know about Jesus the Christ: God created all things through Him. He was/is God along with the Father. Together (God the Father, His Son, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost) they created the universe. If Jesus created the universe along with God the Father, and we will be ‘heirs and joint-heirs’ with Him, then…what?

None of that points to being God of a single planet.

Y’know, I’ve heard this teaching all my life. Every time I turn around, I hear it…but I’ve NEVER heard it from my leaders, my teachers or from anything that I’ve read from LDS sources. The only place I have ever heard it, in my 60 years on this earth, is from anti-Mormons who accuse me of believing it.

Now just how many times do we have to tell people that no, we do not believe that? I mean, really. What’s wrong with just saying “that’s nice…” and going on to the next thing?

…and I’m really tired of being told what I really believe.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Oh, gee, what would you call 60 years old, Randy, teen aged?

That’s how old I am…or will be on Monday, anyway. I am a fifth generation Mormon, Idaho born, Utah raised, California educated–and I still believe. I manage to keep up my studies, knowing precisely what we do believe, y’see…

Whereas Paul and the other ex-Mormons who feel impelled to do battle with us spend their time looking up things to justify their leaving. They aren’t a bit interested in what our beliefs actually are; that is counterproductive to their purposes. They are interested only in presenting our beliefs in as negative a manner as possible. Even if it means lying—or presenting a quote as if it proves one point when it in fact does nothing of the sort, knowing that many people won’t call them on it.

Or that those who agree with him aren’t interested in calling him on it. They do not want him to be wrong. It’s not in their interest.

However, I can’t help but wonder why people do that. If Paul has to use a quote that does NOT support his point, and presents it as if it does, why? Can’t he find something that actually, y’know, DOES support his claim?

I can only consider that…no. He can’t.

Interesting.

I certainly understand the phenomenon since we have many ex-Catholics active in this forum, and most of them have no clue what the Catholic Church teaches…but this doesn’t stop them from claiming that they were taught all sorts of things.

BTW, I asked some questions in posts 21, 23 & 24…feel free to respond if you like.

Thanks.

 

[dianaiad]

LDS do not tend to focus on “getting planets”, as the focus is more on exaltation, which is becoming co-heirs in Christ, and thus becoming like God the Father through Christ. Through exaltation, they will have everything the Father has. They will also have spirit children, as the Heavenly Father and the Heavenly Mother have (i.e. us). To be exalted, one has to fully follow the “restored Gospel”, or the LDS faith. This also includes being going to the temple, which means you have to be endowed and sealed (eternally married) to be exalted.

lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-59,00.html

Here is one interesting quote:

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=12a3cb7a29c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

"To live in the highest part of the celestial kingdom is called exaltation or eternal life. To be able to live in this part of the celestial kingdom, people must have been married in the temple and must have kept the sacred promises they made in the temple. They will receive everything our Father in Heaven has and will become like Him. They will even be able to have spirit children and make new worlds for them to live on*, and do all the things our Father in Heaven has done. People who are not married in the temple may live in other parts of the celestial kingdom, but they will not be exalted."

Thank you, Religio.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson,

It is human nature to speculate. (People do that in our church, sometimes in a Sunday School class or in private.) It is also human nature, when one person is trying to “prove” that they are right and another person is wrong, to build their case using whatever logic suits them. I am an “old” Mormon (age 54) with four past generations in the LDS church, and I have never heard it taught that inheriting a throne like Christ inherits His throne, means that I will be worshipped in the sense that Heavenly Father is the object of all of our worship. I have never felt like the doctrines have been clarified as to how the hereafter will be organized with respect to spirit offsprings’ relationship to us as compared with their relationship to Heavenly Father and the Savior.

We know that the Savior is the same Savior for a vast number of worlds, from the past and from the future. How that all works and what it means in detail, I simply don’t know. I also don’t feel I need to know at the present time. This life is wonderful, full of learning experiences. There is much to learn here and now. Why speculate about what happens in two thousand years from now (or whatever time it may take)? I still like the book of Revelation as the single best source of understanding about Christ’s promises to the faithful–to those who “overcome” (“he that overcometh shall inherit all things”).

Okay…could you address my questions from Post #21, 23 & 24?

Thanks.

 

[PaulDupre]

Here is what we have from that quote: We will become like God the Father, who we (and you, by the way) believe created the entire universe. “Worlds without number,” for his purposes.

He sent us to this earth, to live mortal lives and do whatever it is He wants us to do. Is there anything at all in that quote that limits GOD to the rulership of this earth only? Because the only way you can interpret this statement as limiting US to the rulership only of one planet is to do the same with God the Father.

Now, Diana, I know you are not as dense as you are pretending here. I never said that you believe you will be restricted to creating, populating and ruling *only one *earth. My point was that Mormons believe they will be gods like God the Father, have spirit children, create and populate planets with their spirit offspring, and be worshipped by them.

You have just said that you agree with me, and that you will not create and populate just one world, but many.

Thank you. Unfortunately, Parker and Zerinus don’t agree with you. They claim to believe something completely different.

It seems the Great LDS Apostasy is in full swing.

 

[Charlotte408]

The LDS Church no longer teaches those things. Faithful Mormons have difficulty finding those things in their literature. Those things are only taught by literate but rabid anti-Mormons. Mormonism believes that their profits are infallible. If a past profit ever taught those things, then he was only speaking as a human being. Present profits trump past profits.

(Spelling errors intentional)

Hey, Parker, I beat you to it.

Thanks Dianaid…you did a pretty good job spelling it out…but, is there any merit in the above bolded quotation? Do you think that could be the reason for some of the differences in beliefs among you? (ie. when that one guy, i think it was randy asked questions and got different answers?)

 

[ParkerD]

A follow up…did anyone achieve “godhood” prior to the resurrection of Christ? Or was the Heavenly Father (do you call Him God?) the only God prior to the resurrection?

Randy Carson,
If these questions are referring to this earth, then Christ was already God the Son and therefore God along with God the Father prior to His resurrection. He suffered on the cross as God. He had come to earth already being God the Son. He had been God the Son in the pre-mortal world, and we knew Him as such. Also, the Holy Spirit was God in the pre-mortal world and during all of the period of this earth’s history.

As I had typed before, no one achieved “godhood” prior to the resurrection of Christ in terms of attaining that, but Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had qualified themselves to reach that potential when the time was right, which would come after the resurrection of Christ.

As to other worlds, I honestly have no idea.

 

[ParkerD]

Okay, but were they gods before Jesus’ resurrection, or did they have to wait for that?

They not only had to wait for that, but they had to wait until they had progressed in knowledge beyond 34 AD. It is not a gift of knowledge without effort. It takes effort, time, patient learning.

 

[why_me]

Thanks Dianaid…you did a pretty good job spelling it out…but, is there any merit in the above bolded quotation? Do you think that could be the reason for some of the differences in beliefs among you? (ie. when that one guy, i think it was randy asked questions and got different answers?)

Hello Charlotte!

You are aware that Jerusha spelled prophet incorrectly when he spelled it ‘profit’? Of course he meant no harm by it because he was just trying to be funny but you also used the profit spelling, probably unintentionally. But mormons may find it offensive if you keep doing it.

 

[zerinus]

A follow up…did anyone achieve “godhood” prior to the resurrection of Christ? Or was the Heavenly Father (do you call Him God?) the only God prior to the resurrection?

That information has not been revealed. The scriptures use the word god or gods in more than one sense. God told Moses that He had made him a god over Pharaoh, and Aaron should be his prophet (Exodus 7:1). In Psalms 82:6 the Israelites are called gods; and the Lord affirms that teaching in John 10:34. Paul tells us that there are “gods many and lords many” (1 Corinthians 8:5). The Book of Abraham informs us that this world was created by a number of divine beings which it refers to as “gods”. Angels may be called gods; and in the Old Testament even Satan is called a son of God (Job 1:6; 2:1). So your question is an ambiguous one, partly because the information revealed on the subject is ambiguous.

Okay, but were they gods before Jesus’ resurrection, or did they have to wait for that?

It doesn’t say when they became gods; but it is reasonable to assume that they did not receive their exaltation until after their resurrection; which didn’t happen until after the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Another follow up for Parker and Zerinus:

Were there gods of other planets or solar systems prior to the resurrection of Jesus or have all gods been dependent upon this event (with the exception of the Heavenly Father, of course.)?

Thanks.

There is no such thing as “gods of other planets”. There is only one God, and He is the God of all the planets.

It seems that lots of ex-Mormons have written extensively, and many of them were older people coming from families who were Mormon for several generations.

How is it that older ex-Mormons present a common view of what they were taught that is at odds with what you seem to be presenting?

I wouldn’t try to learn Catholicism from ex-Catholics; and I wouldn’t recommend you to try to learn Mormonism from ex-Mormons.