The city of Enoch coming to America

[Calm]

2 hours ago, marineland said:

He uses mythological language ("gods and goddesses") to emphasize the magnitude and 
splendor of the future glory humans are capable of through grace, not our works.

CFR that Lewis does not mean divine in the same way.  Not challenging, curious about how he describes humanity’s potential.

[marineland]

On 10/1/2025 at 3:48 PM, Calm said:

CFR that Lewis does not mean divine in the same way.  Not challenging, curious about how he describes humanity’s potential.

Don't have one.

[marineland]

On 10/1/2025 at 3:46 PM, Calm said:

See Zealous’ answer…

But if one assumes the Father was born to heavenly parents (meaning spiritually if parallel to our lives), his potential would be most likely to be like his heavenly parents, who would be Gods.

That's what Joseph Smith taught.

[marineland]

On 10/1/2025 at 1:59 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Who said He was born of Heavenly Parents?

(See: Blake Ostler)

Joseph Smith taught that. He had the same parents as his wife did.

[ZealouslyStriving]

14 minutes ago, marineland said:

Joseph Smith taught that. He had the same parents as his wife did.

I'm sure you will be providing the quote with source shortly. 🙂

[marineland]

On 10/4/2025 at 10:51 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

I'm sure you will be providing the quote with source shortly. 🙂

Just reason it out. Where did his wife come from?

[blackstrap]

Side issue. Is the city of Enoch just the people , or does it include the buildings and if so, does it include the land beneath those buildings ? From some reason I remember it said that a chunk of the earth was taken up to heaven with Enoch. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 hours ago, marineland said:

Just reason it out. Where did his wife come from?

You said that Joseph expressly taught that Adam (and Eve) were "born" of Heavenly Parents. Are you now saying he didn't and that we should infer it from something he said?

BTW, have you explored Blake Ostler's thoughts on the subject?

(I only ask because you seem to indicate that we are a monolith, and have a very clear doctrine and mutual understanding of the subject as Saints.)

 

[Stargazer]

On 10/1/2025 at 6:36 PM, marineland said:

"Possible gods and goddesses" doesn't mean humans will literally become divine in 
the same way as God,

Doesn't it? You interpret it that way, but...

On 10/1/2025 at 6:36 PM, marineland said:

but rather that we are destined for a kind of glorified existence that is beyond our current understanding.

I know that Lewis would have limited himself, as you do. But both of you are limited by the platonic philosophy that you inherited from the post-apostolic fathers. Long after apostolic authority and inspiration had gone. Why else was the Council of Nicaea so necessary? Because much had been lost, some of what remained was now believed to be heresy, and some of it was definitely heresy. 

Now I ask you, why can't humans become divine in the same way as God is divine? And isn't "a kind of glorified existence that is beyond our current understanding" be something very close to, if not the same as God? You speak as if God cannot make us into whatever He wants to make us into. Why does He call us His children, if we are not or cannot be of the same nature as He? 

The LDS Doctrine and Covenants contains plenty of information on this, but I don't need D&C to demonstrate it. It's all over the New Testament.

• John starts out with "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name". [John 1:12]
• Paul continues with:
  • "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 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 8:16-17]
  • "Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." [Galatians 4:7]
• Matthew tells that the Lord commanded us: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." [Matthew 5:48]
  • Now, before you say that can't be done, consider what Nephi told his father when the latter asked him to go do a hard thing the Lord had commanded him: "And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them." [1 Nephi 3:7] Now I know that you don't consider the Book of Mormon to be the word of God like the Bible is, but is this sentiment here, just for the sake of argument, nevertheless true? Consider the opposite: does God commonly give commandments He knows are impossible to carry out?
• To John the Revelator was given this word: "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." [Revelation 3:21]
  • The resurrected Christ told John that to those who overcome will be granted to sit with Christ in His throne. Or, in other words, according to Paul, "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ." 

Can you deny that sitting with the Father and the Son in their thrones is "a kind of glorified existence that is beyond our current understanding"? Doesn't that look very much like the exaltation that the Latter-day Saints speak of?

I've mentioned this to you before, but St. Athanasius is credited with the following, in connection with the condescension of the Son in coming to Earth: "For He was made man that we might be made God." You can argue until you're blue in the face that Athanasius didn't really mean it, that like C. S. Lewis, he was using "mythological language." But how would you know the mind of a man millennia dead and gone? Of course, how would I, for that matter, but his writing supports what I'm saying rather more than yours. But as a nod to your sensibilities in this matter, when Athanasius wrote, capitalization in Latin was not a thing, and it had no indefinite article. So Athanasius' saying might also be rendered "For He was made man that we might be made a god." Thus not putting us equal to God. 

On 10/1/2025 at 6:36 PM, marineland said:

He uses mythological language ("gods and goddesses") to emphasize the magnitude and 
splendor of the future glory humans are capable of through grace, not our works.

Again, cannot the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ not raise us to the level of sitting with the Father and the Son in their thrones? It certainly seems that we're intended to become such, else why would John and Paul write what they wrote? 

 

 

[Calm]

On 10/4/2025 at 8:33 AM, marineland said:

Don't have one.

Then you stating he is using the language in a certain way and not in the way suggested by others is speculation, it seems.

[marineland]

On 10/6/2025 at 5:29 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

BTW, have you explored Blake Ostler's thoughts on the subject?

Can you provide the link again.

[marineland]

15 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Now I ask you, why can't humans become divine in the same way as God is divine? And isn't "a kind of glorified existence that is beyond our current understanding" be something very close to, if not the same as God?

How were premortal spirits of heavenly parents considered divine as God is divine?

15 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The LDS Doctrine and Covenants contains plenty of information on this, but I don't need D&C to demonstrate it. It's all over the New Testament.

• John starts out with "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name". [John 1:12]
• Paul continues with:
  • "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 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 8:16-17]
  • "Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." [Galatians 4:7]
• Matthew tells that the Lord commanded us: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." [Matthew 5:48]
  • Now, before you say that can't be done, consider what Nephi told his father when the latter asked him to go do a hard thing the Lord had commanded him: "And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them." [1 Nephi 3:7] Now I know that you don't consider the Book of Mormon to be the word of God like the Bible is, but is this sentiment here, just for the sake of argument, nevertheless true? Consider the opposite: does God commonly give commandments He knows are impossible to carry out?
• To John the Revelator was given this word: "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." [Revelation 3:21]
  • The resurrected Christ told John that to those who overcome will be granted to sit with Christ in His throne. Or, in other words, according to Paul, "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ." 

Are you using these to prove that only sons of God become Gods?

The context of Matthew 5:48 is not becoming Gods.  Start from the beginning of
the chapter.

15 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Can you deny that sitting with the Father and the Son in their thrones is "a kind of glorified existence that is beyond our current understanding"? Doesn't that look very much like the exaltation that the Latter-day Saints speak of?

Are all the 24 elders on their thrones Gods too (Revelation 4:4)?

15 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But as a nod to your sensibilities in this matter, when Athanasius wrote, capitalization in Latin was not a thing, and it had no indefinite article. So Athanasius' saying might also be rendered "For He was made man that we might be made a god." Thus not putting us equal to God. 

You mentioned "not putting".  Don't you mean "putting us equal to God"?

15 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Again, cannot the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ not raise us to the level of sitting with the Father and the Son in their thrones? It certainly seems that we're intended to become such, else why would John and Paul write what they wrote? 

Based on what the scriptures say, I don't believe Gods can be formed.