Was God ever a sinner?

[Jeff K.]

It will if they are called "pesos".

They will lose value the way a diarrhetic individual loses body weight.

[James Banta]

James you missed this reply to you.

Also you claimed.

" will be like Jesus clean and pure before a Holy God but I will never be a God.. That is something God said will NEVER happen.. Am I to follow your faulty logic of trust what God has spoken? IHS jim"

Were is it taught that God said we won't ever be like him? I can CAPS letters to, but you see MERELY ASSERTERING SOMETHING DOESN'T MAKE IT SO. CFR that God "said that man will never be a God.. That is something God said will NEVER happen.." Were is this new revelation found?

Please respond to both of my posts.

It is taught that we will be like Him is some ways but in His divinity we will not..

Isaiah 43:10

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

God is all the God there ever has been all the God there ever will be.. NO OTHER WILL EVER BE FORMED.. That means that you have no hope at becoming a god.. Anyone who teaches such a thing is going up against the specific pronouncement of God.. He and He alone is God... He says that He knows of no other God(s).. If mormonism teaches that there were God(s) in existence before God, then you are sating you know more than Deity and that is blasphemy.. IHS jim

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No we as LDS do not understand this. That's why you have active members of the church with opposite views on this, and no clarifications from the leaders.

You have someone in the thread saying the doctrine is anti-Christian, anti-Bible, heresy. Then DP refers back to a Bob Millet PR piece about how we're really just like Christians after all. We either are or we're not. It's either G or it's g. Somebody tell us what it is.

The problem is that this is not an either/or issue as you have laid it out. In reality it is both. We can become gods and Gods. DCP I am sure would agree with me. I might be wrong but I am willing to wager.

Go ahead, ask me how it works.

[robuchan]

The problem is that this is not an either/or issue as you have laid it out. In reality it is both. We can become gods and Gods. DCP I am sure would agree with me. I might be wrong but I am willing to wager.

Go ahead, ask me how it works.

K, how does it work?

I guess I don't know about DP, but if he's using that Bob Millet article to defend the doctrine, it appears he does not believe we can become Gods. At any rate, a large faction of active LDS does not believe man can become Gods. And it is definitely not clear one way or the other.

[thesometimesaint]

James Banta:

See 1 Corinthians 8:5-6

8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

8:6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It is taught that we will be like Him is some ways but in His divinity we will not..

Isaiah 43:10

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

God is all the God there ever has been all the God there ever will be.. NO OTHER WILL EVER BE FORMED.. That means that you have no hope at becoming a god.. Anyone who teaches such a thing is going up against the specific pronouncement of God.. He and He alone is God... He says that He knows of no other God(s).. If mormonism teaches that there were God(s) in existence before God, then you are sating you know more than Deity and that is blasphemy.. IHS jim

So short sighted your interprtations are. I guess Paul didn't get taht memo.

You are certain entightled to that interpretation. I will admit that it is a reasonable interpretation. Can you extend the same courtesy to us?

Consider Pauls words

4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

So here we see that Paul is indeed talking about idols, then he goes on to tell us that"For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many," Tell me are there false gods in heaven? Also are there false lords? I have never heard that refered to in the scriptures. So the answer is no, there is not false gods in heaven.

So if these are real gods and real lords (as Paul seems to say) other than God the Father, tell me then how then what you quoted "I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me" and with what I post can jive to gether.

IWO

How can there be other gods and yet ther can also only be "one God"? Try to think out side of the box here. You might just learn something.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

K, how does it work?

I guess I don't know about DP, but if he's using that Bob Millet article to defend the doctrine, it appears he does not believe we can become Gods. At any rate, a large faction of active LDS does not believe man can become Gods. And it is definitely not clear one way or the other.

Are you LDS?

The question I asked of you before this post has something to do with what I posted to James.

[robuchan]

Are you LDS?

Yes

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes

I guess that question didn't really matter but thanks for responding.

To answer the question in part we can look to the first paragraph of the article.

Here it is

"This doctrine is generally referred to as deification, and the LDS expression of this doctrine is often misrepresented and misunderstood. Latter-day Saints do not believe that human beings will ever be independent of God, or that they will ever cease to be subordinate to God."

In what way are we to be gods?

In what way are we to be Gods?

The first is offical teahcing of the church.

the 2nd is more speculation but it is logical speculation and many have speculated and taught it as such.

[robuchan]

I guess that question didn't really matter but thanks for responding.

To answer the question in part we can look to the first paragraph of the article.

Here it is

"This doctrine is generally referred to as deification, and the LDS expression of this doctrine is often misrepresented and misunderstood. Latter-day Saints do not believe that human beings will ever be independent of God, or that they will ever cease to be subordinate to God."

In what way are we to be gods?

In what way are we to be Gods?

The first is offical teahcing of the church.

the 2nd is more speculation but it is logical speculation and many have speculated and taught it as such.

So you seem to be saying there's a BIG difference between becoming a god and becoming a God. And that the becoming a God part is speculation. Very good. We agree. You say the speculation is logical based on past statements by prophets. I say there's a lot of evidence modern prophets are reversing this doctrine. Fifty years ago I would say it's very logical to speculate blacks were fence sitters in the preexistence. Eighty years ago I'd say it's very logical to speculate there was no death before the Fall. 100 years ago I'd say it's very logical to speculate Adam was God. and so on.

[thesometimesaint]

Robucon:

CFR

[James Banta]

YOU came onto a self admitted LDS Discussion Board. Insult our beliefs, insult our Scriptures, tell us we're going to Hell for not believing YOUR interpretation of the Bible. But an attack on YOUR interpretation of the Bible is an attack on YOU personally?

But know what you are right.. I am not welcome here you don't want any resistance in your mormon party I'm done you can enjoy this as a victroy... I have sinned against you in comeing here you can't stand someone disagreeing with the doctrine of mormonism that can be questioned from a Biblical standpoint. I have given you a few thing to think about but I am not up for being accused of being in a place I don't belong. You must be a returned missionary, I have noticed that mormon missionaries can't handle a discussion either. This is the thrid time i have tried to come here and talk civilly with you or anyone else that isn't so hateful that they can do it. I see that such a thing at least with you in not possible... Bye IHS jim

[robuchan]

Robucon:

CFR

CFR on what?

P.S. anytime you CFR you should be prepared to look like an idiot

[Lightbearer]

Wow that burned.. Here I was thinking that the Bible taught:

Romans 3:23

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God

Isaiah 53:6

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Isaiah 64:6

But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Psalm 51:5

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

WOW was I wrong, I should have been coming to you for truth and putting away that Bible.. I mean what did I think it was the word od God or something?

I can tell I am really getting under your skin, that is not my purpose, I am defending a doctrine I consider sacred. Also nowhere in any of my posts have I ever claimed man to be sinless (except Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of the Father.) So really the quotes you provide amounts to a doctrinal straw-man. But these quotes do not support the false doctrine of "total depravity" that you seem to think it does.

I attacked you personally? That I have to see.. If you can show me that I did that though name calling or telling you of a divine punishment you will suffer I will leave after making sure I tell everyone that I am a liar and everything I say is garbage.. If not, nah I won't ask you to take that charge back I'll just remember who you are and who I am.. Here is a news flash.. Disbelieving the doctrines of mormonism is not a personal attack on you..

If you would actually read what I wrote I did not claim you were personally attacking me.

Please spare us the false dramatics, you know full well what I was suggesting. You just did not have an answer for it that is why you must resort to accusations of a personal attack.

Note I said you were accusing me of personal attacks instead of giving a real answer to the Bible quotes I provided.

You have taken Matthew 7:16 out of context.. They are speaking od false prophets.. I do not claim the spiritual gift of prophecy so I am not mentioned in this context..

Matthew 7:15-16

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

No all of us who claim the testimony of Jesus should also claim the spirit of prophecy, so it is quite applicable, "by your fruits" or "by your testimony" we shall know them. If a man speaks or writes by the holy Ghost it should be the word of the Lord, if he speaks by any other spirit it is not of God, therefore if you have not the spirit of prophecy that would make you a false teacher.

At least this time things aren't out of context just misunderstanding, just ignored..

[

b]Num 23:19

God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

There I go again trusting in the Bible...

Yes context is a great thing, God does not repent because He is now a God, not a mortal corruptible man... even though the Bible does say "it repented God that He created man" but we will let that pass.

I quoted a verse of the Bible I didn't saw God is a corruptible man anymore than the Bible does look at the verse again

Roman 1:23

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Clear enough isn't it.. The image made like to corruptible man. Joseph Smith created a god that looked just like him even though the Bible clearly says that God is Spirit...

And they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth... man is also spirit, does not change the fact that Jesus who is in the express image of the Father said that after His resurrection He had a body of "flesh and bones" that was in one of the scriptures I quoted that you chose to ignore. The Bible states that man was created in the image and likeness of God, God being glorified and perfect, we being mortal and imperfect but still the image of a man, which is the image of God.

I agree with the Bible AGAIN.. God will make us kings and priests unto God.. We will rein with Him in His Kingdom. No where is it ever said that we will be made gods in some other kingdom of our own.. We will be kings and priests in HIS! So saying He is King of kings and Lord of lords i will agree can mean us as will as the kings and lords of men on the earth.

You do not agree with the parts in my other posts that you ignored. Just who exactly will we be reigning over? Men on the earth? In your theology I think there is but one heaven and one hell, so will we reign in heaven or hell? If all who go to heaven are saved then why would we reign over our brethren? Jesus is the only one with that distinction. It is true enough that we will reign under our Father as a part of His kingdom, He will move on to a higher exaltation and our spirit children will be those with whom we will reign over and help them become as one of us...

I will stall say that any being that was a creation of another God on some other world earthlike or heavenlike is NOT the God of the Bible..

So you do not believe that Jesus was just doing what He saw His Father do?

For that God tell us that NO OTHER GOD EXISTED in the past and NO OTHER GOD WILL EXIST in the future.. It is you and not me that is picking and choosing what he wants to believe from the Bible.. I believe it all while you delete or at least ignore the parts that don't conform to mormon doctrine as proclaimed my Joseph Smith..

Look who is ignoring all the scriptures I quoted and not one answer. I think the problem is you do not interpret the scriptures the same as we do, that is where you get the problems from.

As for Jesus being a man that became God, you have it backward.. Jesus was God who became man.. And this for His glory in rescuing men who had betrayed he in their sin already.. That is a concept mormons have trouble with I don't blame you for not understanding. IHS jim

First let me say that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the flesh, His Father was God the Eternal Father, His mother was the mortal woman Mary. He was the pre-existent Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament. His Father was Elohim, the Eternal Father and we all are spirit children of the Father, Jehovah was the first born and He was the lamb of God sent to put the Father's plan for His sons and daughters in operation. You do not understand these concepts, that much is obvious, but please try not to misrepresent what LDS teach.

[thesometimesaint]

James Banta:

I have no problem with you or anyone else disagreeing with me, or my chosen religion. I do have a problem with ANYONE coming here and condemning me and those of my religion to Hell. I do have a problem with "Gotta" questions like "Was God ever a sinner?".

If you leave it is because of your arrogant, self serving, misuse of the Bible, and an LDS calling you out on it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So you seem to be saying there's a BIG difference between becoming a god and becoming a God. And that the becoming a God part is speculation. Very good. We agree. You say the speculation is logical based on past statements by prophets. I say there's a lot of evidence modern prophets are reversing this doctrine. Fifty years ago I would say it's very logical to speculate blacks were fence sitters in the preexistence. Eighty years ago I'd say it's very logical to speculate there was no death before the Fall. 100 years ago I'd say it's very logical to speculate Adam was God. and so on.

I wouldn't quite put it like that.

When we become gods we become Gods at the same time. THe particular part of doctrine that I am refering too is "worlds with out end" and "eternal lives". What do those mean?

That is were the little bits of speculation have come from. I am aware of no prophet past or present that has denounced that when we become exalted that we will not create spirit children or create worlds. If those 2 pieces of information are true, then God is an appropriate title. If not then god would be.

The way I see it though is it is impossible to be just a god and not be a God at the same time. I am willing to be wrong as my salvation does not hang on any of this. If some one can put forth a more accurate understanding I am all ears.

Were are gods because we have all that teh Father has and we are subordiant to Him always.

We are Gods becase with waht we inherit from God we have the ability to create our own children who are subordiant to us hence eternal progression, and we will always be their God. This last part is a little speculative. However I am unaware of any statement that runs contrary to this. That we will not create our own "spirit children" or create our own worlds.

I forgot to add one other critical peice of info, when we become gods/Gods, we will never be Gods to other people whose God is God the Father.

[robuchan]

I wouldn't quite put it like that.

When we become gods we become Gods at the same time. THe particular part of doctrine that I am refering too is "worlds with out end" and "eternal lives". What do those mean?

That is were the little bits of speculation have come from. I am aware of no prophet past or present that has denounced that when we become exalted that we will not create spirit children or create worlds. If those 2 pieces of information are true, then God is an appropriate title. If not then god would be.

The way I see it though is it is impossible to be just a god and not be a God at the same time. I am willing to be wrong as my salvation does not hang on any of this. If some one can put forth a more accurate understanding I am all ears.

Were are gods because we have all that teh Father has and we are subordiant to Him always.

We are Gods becase with waht we inherit from God we have the ability to create our own children who are subordiant to us hence eternal progression, and we will always be their God. This last part is a little speculative. However I am unaware of any statement that runs contrary to this. That we will not create our own "spirit children" or create our own worlds.

I think there's a huge difference between g and G and that the two are absolutely not mutually inclusive. I think 99% of the people who read the Bible would agree. If you didn't believe that, I don't know why you would even waste your time writing that article DCP linked to that emphasizes the Christian friendly aspects of g. Just be honest and say "yeah we're different. We believe can become G."

The main point of contention I had with your take is that you say it's clear among Mormons what we believe on this and that difference between g and G is insignificant. It's not. Many Mormons believe no man will ever be referred to as God by his children.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think there's a huge difference between g and G and that the two are absolutely not mutually inclusive. I think 99% of the people who read the Bible would agree. If you didn't believe that, I don't know why you would even waste your time writing that article DCP linked to that emphasizes the Christian friendly aspects of g. Just be honest and say "yeah we're different. We believe can become G."

The main point of contention I had with your take is that you say it's clear among Mormons what we believe on this and that difference between g and G is insignificant. It's not. Many Mormons believe no man will ever be referred to as God by his children.

Im am fine with this. I also happen to believe that that article is trying to build on a common belief and approaching it from taht angle. I don't think that article spells it all out. THe article is certainly not wrong. I think we LDS do understand the differnce. I think though taht some do not understand the differnce here. LDS try ot make it a practice to build on others beliefs, why would one go into a converstation with the intent to say "yes we are so different and here is why". How effective is taht approach. I am quite guilty of the 2nd approach. I have tried the 1st approach numerous times and it works better.

I just think many "christians" don't understand how we can be Gods and gods at the same time or even indavidually.

As I see it from your post you really have nothing critical to say about my ideas. I would really appreciate it if you could read it again and think on it, and see if I am really off base. I am very much interested in what other LDS think about it. I admit that it is not offical in any way, but I have put a lot of thought into it.

One other after thought, God is a title, it is a title like Dad or President. Are there many dads out there? Yeah at teh same time there are many Dads as well. I only have one Dad, though there are many dads. I am a Dad because I have kids but I am also a dad to other people just because Dad is a tilte I hold.

[Doctor Steuss]

It is taught that we will be like Him is some ways but in His divinity we will not..

James,

Might I suggest some light reading?

"Roman Law in the Writings of Paul: Adoption" by Francis Lyall in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 88, No. 4 (Dec., 1969), pp. 458-466

It's a rather brief/short article; your local or university library should be able to provide you with a copy if you can't obtain one online. Or, maybe a refresher (which I'm sure this is already in your own personal library) by re-reading the section on adoption in Ferguson's Backgrounds of Early Christianity.

What you're advocating would be quite foreign not only to the early saints, but to the apostles who were teaching them. Unless you're claiming that Paul was a heretic (something with which I might be able to agree) and was "going up against the specific pronouncement of G[-]d"?

[Edited 5 times to comply with OCD needs]

[ERMD]

If God had to be an ordinary mortal man, and sin, and regenerate then this means that He is a different kind of being than previously supposed.

First, a God who has always been God, who is all knowing, all powerful, everywhere present. past-present-future is necessary for the Atonement to have saving power the negative effects of sin.

Second this is connected to the idea called Transcendence coupled with what has been termed Immanence. God's saving powers rely on Him having these attributes so that His Spirit can regenerate fallen human beings toward perfection.

If God is not the kind of God who has the power to back up human repentance, the Atonement, and can forgive-- causing it to function by His sovern power-- then we are all lost.

Sorry, but I don't find transcendence or immanence in my Bible.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

One other after thought consider this: God is a title, it is a title like Dad or President. Are there many dads out there? Yeah at teh same time there are many Dads as well. I only have one Dad, though there are many dads. I am a Dad because I have kids but I am also a dad to other people just because "Dad" is a tilte I hold.

Dad and dad do not mean the same thing. Similarly God and god do not mean the same thing.

Here is were the confusion come from, I was asked several times on my mission that " Don't you beleive you will become God"? The answer is no. Why is that, because I can never replace God the Father as their God.

So when evangelicals see that we believe we can become God they assume that means God the Father, which is not what any body in teh LDS church thinks or has taught.

I hope this is clear.

[ERMD]

We see clues of God's true nature in the conditions of salvation He offers we humans and the terms that God is represented to us so that we feel secure in His promises.

You're saying that salvation is conditional?

[robuchan]

Im am fine with this. I also happen to believe that that article is trying to build on a common belief and approaching it from taht angle. I don't think that article spells it all out. THe article is certainly not wrong. I think we LDS do understand the differnce. I think though taht some do not understand the differnce here. LDS try ot make it a practice to build on others beliefs, why would one go into a converstation with the intent to say "yes we are so different and here is why". How effective is taht approach. I am quite guilty of the 2nd approach. I have tried the 1st approach numerous times and it works better.

I just think many "christians" don't understand how we can be Gods and gods at the same time or even indavidually.

As I see it from your post you really have nothing critical to say about my ideas. I would really appreciate it if you could read it again and think on it, and see if I am really off base. I am very much interested in what other LDS think about it. I admit that it is not offical in any way, but I have put a lot of thought into it.

One other after thought, God is a title, it is a title like Dad or President. Are there many dads out there? Yeah at teh same time there are many Dads as well. I only have one Dad, though there are many dads. I am a Dad because I have kids but I am also a dad to other people just because Dad is a tilte I hold.

I don't think you're off base as opposed to mainstream Mormonism. I think the majority are with you. But I think you're wrong and so are they. I don't think God is a title. I don't think man will become God. I think there is one God and there always has been and always will be one God. I also think that is what will become the official Mormon church doctrine over time, and at some point in the future people will be excommunicated for preaching what you believe.

[robuchan]

One other after thought consider this: God is a title, it is a title like Dad or President. Are there many dads out there? Yeah at teh same time there are many Dads as well. I only have one Dad, though there are many dads. I am a Dad because I have kids but I am also a dad to other people just because "Dad" is a tilte I hold.

Dad and dad do not mean the same thing. Similarly God and god do not mean the same thing.

This has never been implied in any explanation of g in the past. The explanation of g is that it - "joint heir" no more no less.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This has never been implied in any explanation of g in the past. The explanation of g is that it - "joint heir" no more no less.

Joint-heir to what though?