Why Mormons Build Temples

  • Thread starter Thread starter zerinus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One of the ideas in the OP made me remember an incident from many years ago. The incident is an example of supporting your opposition by resisting. Here is what happened. I was living in Arizona at the time and much more into watching prime time news than now. One of the stories one night was of an RC pastor who was incensed that patrons of a nude entertainment club across the street were using his church’s parking lot when going to the club. He was doing evereything he could to wage legal and media “war” on this bad influence that set up shop, legally, across the street from the church. The club in question was in Connecticut. And here I was, most of the way across the country, hearing about this blown-up conflict.

As it happened, I got a job in Stamford, CT, about a month later, and ended up renting at a friend’s house in a nearby town. As it turned out, taking an alternate route to work one day, I happened on this club/church location. The club parking lot was packed, and overflowed, as reported, into the church lot across the street. Over the time I lived in the area this was always the case as I drove by here during business hours. I couldn’t help notice all the out of state plates in the lots.

I thought to myself one day, “The owner of that club ought to be tithing to the church in gratitude for all the free advertising!” Indeed, until the club was closed on a legal technicality, the Pastor’s efforts had the matter on the first page of the newspaper’s “local” section every few weeks, or in some form of local media. Evidently, judging from the number of cars at the club and in his parking lot, he was doing far more to increase attendance at the club than he did at his church!

I wonder if the same dynamic doesn’t hold true on here to some extent. While my experience is generally one of being welcomed here, and of not only civil but warm conversation, I see a lot of “enemies of the Church” stuff. In particular, there is a militant element on here that by slamming other’s way of perception–I would guess, correcty, l think,-- actually enforces the conviciton on some parts that Catholicism isn’t the way. This is particulary applicable to the idea that our God is a Loving God and we are all His children.

In other words, instead of lifting up the ideal that someone is making a sincere effort to know God, and is on here and presents an opportunity to dialogue, the person might get slammed by someone who in the end does more damage to the perception of the Church than good. Or maybe the forum or the Church employs gadflies to harass someone who has a different understanding? I don’t know. But judging from some conversations I’ve had on here, that feels like the case, even if it is not consciously so on the slammer’s part. (It’s not a conspiracy, it’s a business plan, lol!) Anyway, all that reminded me of the good Pastor who mutiplied, by being so adamantly against it, the business of the club across the street by at least, according to reports, a factor of ten.
 
The first time that the lie that humans can become Gods was told by Satan in the Garden of Eden.

Every time that lie is told it has the same source.
how is Satan’s “position” (can’t think of a good word) equivalent to the LDS position on exaltation?
 
how is Satan’s “position” (can’t think of a good word) equivalent to the LDS position on exaltation?
The LDS claim about exaltation is the same thing as the lie told by Satan in the Garden of Eden. It was a lie then. It continues to be a lie every time it is told. The most likely reason is that it comes from a common source.
 
The LDS claim about exaltation is the same thing as the lie told by Satan in the Garden of Eden. It was a lie then. It continues to be a lie every time it is told. The most likely reason is that it comes from a common source.
right, but I’m trying to understand how or why you think they are the same thing, as in, can you explain how the concept of exaltation=what Satan said in the Garden of Eden?
 
right, but I’m trying to understand how or why you think they are the same thing, as in, can you explain how the concept of exaltation=what Satan said in the Garden of Eden?
Satan was behind the temptation to be like God that led to the Fall. The lie is that we can be Gods. It’s a lie every time it is told. It was a lie in the Garden, and it’s a lie any time the claim is made by Mormon so-called prophets in setting forth this concept of progression to Godhood.

God is one, not the head of a club where everyone gets to be Him eventually. The lie that we can be Gods, no matter when or where the lie is told, is an appeal to human vanity. The lie was first told by Satan. Later repetitions of the lie have a common origin.
 
Satan was behind the temptation to be like God that led to the Fall. The lie is that we can be Gods. It’s a lie every time it is told. It was a lie in the Garden, and it’s a lie any time the claim is made by Mormon so-called prophets in setting forth this concept of progression to Godhood.

God is one, not the head of a club where everyone gets to be Him eventually. The lie that we can be Gods, no matter when or where the lie is told, is an appeal to human vanity. The lie was first told by Satan. Later repetitions of the lie have a common origin.
But see I don’t think you’re understanding exaltation. It is not about getting to be Him. Exaltation is not about being equal to God.

"The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Eloheim, the Father. He is God. Of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him.

There is only one Christ, one Redeemer. We accept the divinity of the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. We accept the promise that we may become joint heirs with Him.

(Boyd K. Packer, “The Pattern of Our Parentage,” Ensign, Nov. 1984, p. 69.) "
 
But see I don’t think you’re understanding exaltation. It is not about getting to be Him. Exaltation is not about being equal to God.

"The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Eloheim, the Father. He is God. Of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him.

There is only one Christ, one Redeemer. We accept the divinity of the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. We accept the promise that we may become joint heirs with Him.

(Boyd K. Packer, “The Pattern of Our Parentage,” Ensign, Nov. 1984, p. 69.) "
Some of your fellow LDS members believe, and in some cases have stated on this forum, that they can become Gods and Goddesses of their own planet in eternity if they live worthily. Call it whatever you like, rationalize it however you like, that’s the lie. It’s the same lie that Adam and Eve fell for. You have a chance to show greater, less ego-laden, wisdom by rejecting the lie.
 
Some of your fellow LDS members believe, and in some cases have stated on this forum, that they can become Gods and Goddesses of their own planet in eternity if they live worthily. Call it whatever you like, rationalize it however you like, that’s the lie. It’s the same lie that Adam and Eve fell for. You have a chance to show greater, less ego-laden, wisdom by rejecting the lie.
I guess I do not see how exaltation is equivalent to Satan’s lie, especially when we consider that Satan wanted all the glory for himself, and it wasn’t only about being like God, but being God, essentially replacing Him. Becoming joint-heirs in Christ, made possible by His death and resurrection, is not the same thing, and there really is no correlation between exaltation and what Satan said, if one understands what exaltation is about.
 
This question is somewhat specious. It is mockery veiled by curiosity–almost like the HBO episode. Do you really want to know for your own edification? Or do you simply want to validate your distaste for everything “Mormon”?
Save your self-righteous indignation. It is a question that is neither mockery or curiosity.
Oh, well. Since you asked the question…
Here is the answer: We do not (or should not) speak of God in such irreverent terms. If Jesus Christ, the Savior of the World, felt the need to humble himself and kneel before the God of Heaven, how much more respectful should we be of his goodness and glory?
That being said, let’s talk about what we agree upon. God is our father. Jesus was very clear on that point when after he was resurrected he spoke to Mary Magdalene:
As the Son of God, Jesus Christ is an heir to God’s throne and kingdom. Paul explained as much to the Hebrews:
We, too, as children of God, may be heirs of God also, and joint-heirs with Christ (if we suffer with him) …and you can blame Paul for this heretical doctrine:
Ya see ;), Catholics and Mormons agree that we are children of God.
God is the King of the universe. That would make us princes and princesses to the King–and engender in us the potential to be Kings and Queens ourselves. This may seem like a made-up story to tell youngsters, but Saint John did not seem to have a problem with it:
As usual, the question not answered. You answered the question you think I should have asked. Such a good disciple of Oakes. LIe for the Lord. Oakes would be proud.
 
Save your self-righteous indignation. It is a question that is neither mockery or curiosity.

As usual, the question not answered. You answered the question you think I should have asked. Such a good disciple of Oakes. LIe for the Lord. Oakes would be proud.
Indignation? Hardly. If I became indignant for every case of irreverence I see, I would be miserable. I answered your question–and I used your Bible!!

You do not want to know what we believe as a church, you want to know if a rumor is true. I told you what we believe as a church, and I let you figure your rumor out for yourself. We believe that God is our father. We do not know what happened before the Council/War in Heaven (see Revelation 12:7-11). Any one who claims to know this is a false teacher.

But anyone who claims that we do not have the seeds of divinity in us ourselves does not understand the scriptures! Christ himself taught this:
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? (John 10:33-36)
 
The first time that the lie that humans can become Gods was told by Satan in the Garden of Eden.

Every time that lie is told it has the same source.
Satan said that Adam and Eve would not die if they ate the forbidden fruit and that it would make them as gods:
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3:2-5)
The lie was that they would not die. Was the Lord God also lying when he said:
And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: (Genesis 3:22)
 
Dianaid-
You mentioned you were looking for actual quotes from church leaders re: the teaching of becoming a god; does this mean you yourself do not believe you can become one? And that the teachings of all your past prophets on this subject were wrong?
Please clarify your position. Thanks
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=261486

Here is the stuff you’re looking for, about God once being a man, and how men can ‘progress’ to become gods.
 
Indignation? Hardly. If I became indignant for every case of irreverence I see, I would be miserable. I answered your question–and I used your Bible!!
Any Bible you us is a Catholic Bible. Except, the JST…that’s something else.
You do not want to know what we believe as a church, you want to know if a rumor is true.
So, your prophets spread rumors? interesting.
I told you what we believe as a church, and I let you figure your rumor out for yourself. We believe that God is our father. We do not know what happened before the Council/War in Heaven (see Revelation 12:7-11). Any one who claims to know this is a false teacher.
Yes, I agree, JS was a false prophet. Perhaps you didn’t know he claimed just what I asked? It is why I asked it. Mormons agree on themselves being exalted. You disagree that your god was once a man. Even, disagree with JS himself and every prophet until your church started teaching otherwise.
But anyone who claims that we do not have the seeds of divinity in us ourselves does not understand the scriptures! Christ himself taught this:
The divine is only found with GOD. And yes, I believe He calls to everyone.
 
I guess I do not see how exaltation is equivalent to Satan’s lie, especially when we consider that Satan wanted all the glory for himself, and it wasn’t only about being like God, but being God, essentially replacing Him. Becoming joint-heirs in Christ, made possible by His death and resurrection, is not the same thing, and there really is no correlation between exaltation and what Satan said, if one understands what exaltation is about.
I’m sure you don’t see. Perhaps it is because you don’t want to see. Tempting someone to become a God is the same lie.

Even if you cannot see, it’s a lie nevertheless. It was a lie before, it’s still a lie. When Mormons fall for the story that they can progress to becoming Gods and Goddesses on their own planet, they’re falling for the same lie as Adam and Eve.

People don’t become Gods. God didn’t start out as a man and somehow progress to being a God. And no matter how good a life you lead here on earth it is not going to result in you becoming a God here or anywhere else. It’s a lie, first told by Satan, an appeal to vanity and ego, just as the lie about becoming a God on your own planet is an ego-saturated fabrication. Anyone who hears the modern day equivalent of the lie should consider the source, because it is likely the same source.
 
I’m sure you don’t see. Perhaps it is because you don’t want to see. Tempting someone to become a God is the same lie.

Even if you cannot see, it’s a lie nevertheless. It was a lie before, it’s still a lie. When Mormons fall for the story that they can progress to becoming Gods and Goddesses on their own planet, they’re falling for the same lie as Adam and Eve.

People don’t become Gods. God didn’t start out as a man and somehow progress to being a God. And no matter how good a life you lead here on earth it is not going to result in you becoming a God here or anywhere else. It’s a lie, first told by Satan, an appeal to vanity and ego, just as the lie about becoming a God on your own planet is an ego-saturated fabrication. Anyone who hears the modern day equivalent of the lie should consider the source, because it is likely the same source.
This really didn’t answer my question. I’m wondering how the belief in exaltation is equivalent to Satan’s lie. I’m not concerned with God the Father being a man, getting planets, whether LDS belief is from Satan, whether I don’t want to see or not, etc. I’m wondering how, from a theological perspective, you see that exaltation, the belief that because of Christ’s death and resurrection we are able to become gods, joint-heirs in Christ, is equivalent to Satan wanting to not just become like God, but to be God. To not share in God’s glory, but to have all glory to himself.
 
from the catechism

** Freedom put to the test**
396 ** God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.
** Man’s first sin

**397 **Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.
398 In that sin man *preferred *himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”
 
from the catechism

** Freedom put to the test**
396 ** God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.
** Man’s first sin

**397 **Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.
398 In that sin man *preferred *himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”
Thanks Rebecca. I think this passage highlights the differences between LDS exaltation and the “original sin” in the Garden.
 
his is particulary applicable to the idea that our God is a Loving God and we are all His children.
In other words, instead of lifting up the ideal that someone is making a sincere effort to know God, and is on here and presents an opportunity to dialogue, the person might get slammed by someone who in the end does more damage to the perception of the Church than good. Or maybe the forum or the Church employs gadflies to harass someone who has a different understanding? I don’t know. But judging from some conversations I’ve had on here, that feels like the case, even if it is not consciously so on the slammer’s part. (It’s not a conspiracy, it’s a business plan, lol!) Anyway, all that reminded me of the good Pastor who mutiplied, by being so adamantly against it, the business of the club across the street by at least, according to reports, a factor of ten.

Detales, you fell away from Catholicism with all its rules to become a Buddhist. Now you seem upset by those who live by the church and proclaim her dogma. Why?

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem
 
Thanks Rebecca. I think this passage highlights the differences between LDS exaltation and the “original sin” in the Garden.
It is crucial to understanding the catholic (universal) doctrine of theosis. Mormons often compare the two. There are similarities, but crucial differences. Those differences begin in understanding, correctly, the Fall.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top