Are You Being Led Astray By Lds Shepherds?

[teddyaware]

What are the deeper teachings?

Read all my posts on this thread and you'll get the idea.

[SeekerB]

And those born in 1948 but still living in 2013? Which side of the curse do they fall on? Did their black skin, in 1948, reflect conduct in the pre-mortal existence? If so, how can it not do so in 2013? I don't think your explanation works.

 

I never said they had a curse. I only gave an explanation of how both statements could be true at the time they were given.  Someone born in 1948 would be 65 in 2013. Based on the average lifespan of 58 in South Africa and 72 in the US, most of those people would be dead by now, making the survivors today only a tiny fraction of the population.  In addition, since only 12 and older receive the priesthood, the 1949 statement only had to include that age group bumping the 2013 age up to 77 or so, an even smaller percentage of the living population.

[wenglund]

Another way to pose the question of this thread is: "In godly matters, are there significant instances when you have more faith and trust in oneself and pop culture than in God's chosen servants?"

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[canard78]

I never said they had a curse. I only gave an explanation of how both statements could be true at the time they were given. Someone born in 1948 would be 65 in 2013. Based on the average lifespan of 58 in South Africa and 72 in the US, most of those people would be dead by now, making the survivors today only a tiny fraction of the population. In addition, since only 12 and older receive the priesthood, the 1949 statement only had to include that age group bumping the 2013 age up to 77 or so, an even smaller percentage of the living population.

That doesn't remotely answer my question and leaves you undermining your original suggested explanation.

Besides, nevermind 2013, what about 1978

http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1570

[theplains]

And those born in 1948 but still living in 2013? Which side of the curse do they fall on? Did their black skin, in 1948, reflect conduct in the pre-mortal existence? If so, how can it not do so in 2013? I don't think your explanation works.

 

See Answers to Gospel Questions, volume two and three (posted to scribd). The questions

are discussed there.

 

Thanks,

Jim

[canard78]

See Answers to Gospel Questions, volume two and three (posted to scribd). The questions

are discussed there.

Thanks,

Jim

You're quoting a racist document to support a racist past policy? Not working.

Given volume 3 talks about modern-day righteous Lamanites being "delightsome," "losing their dark pigment" who could "readily pass as of the white race" I give this book very little weight or credibility.

[Calm]

Jim isn't LDS.  He is probably quite happy to help you to discount anything and everything about the LDS Church.

Edited November 15, 2014 by calmoriah

[canard78]

Jim isn't LDS.  He is probably quite happy to help you to discount anything and everything about the LDS Church.

 

Thanks, it's hard to keep track!

[theplains]

I give this book very little weight or credibility.

 

This series of books received significant praise as the teachings came from then LDS President

Joseph Fielding Smith.  

 

Here are some of the comments written in the inside cover / intro / preface:

 

"No one is better qualified to answer gospel questions than President Smith .. Answers to

Gospel Questions .. deserves wide reading by all members of the Church who wish to

receive final answers to their questions" (inside cover of volume one).

 

"The purpose of these volumes of Answers is to help members of the Church to know and

walk in the light of truth" (forward section of volume five).

 

In those days, he was speaking as authority.  Personally I don't agree with some of his

'truths'.

 

Regards,

Jim

[mass168]

I don't know if anyone is paying attention to this topic still, but I have a related question I don't think has been addressed directly yet.

 

I feel I have been led astray by the doctrine that men may become gods. Isaiah 43:10 clearly says no Gods will come be formed before or after the one true God.

 

I have heard all kinds of rationalizations based on the famous couplet. At the end of the day, everyone is still disagreeing with Isaiah 43:10 when they say that we can become gods? I don't think this is a disputed passage in terms of translation. Are the shepherds allowed to teach something other than what it says? 

[Kenngo1969]

I don't know if anyone is paying attention to this topic still, but I have a related question I don't think has been addressed directly yet.

 

I feel I have been led astray by the doctrine that men may become gods. Isaiah 43:10 clearly says no Gods will come be formed before or after the one true God.

Hmmm.  Well, you're free to think that believing members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are playing tennis with the net down, but we have all kinds of additional resources besides the Bible, great as it is: We have the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and the words of living apostles and prophets.

 

As for whether I might someday become a god (please note small "g"), I'd like to worry about getting 100% home teaching first, thanks.

[Tacenda]

I don't know if anyone is paying attention to this topic still, but I have a related question I don't think has been addressed directly yet.

I feel I have been led astray by the doctrine that men may become gods. Isaiah 43:10 clearly says no Gods will come be formed before or after the one true God.

I have heard all kinds of rationalizations based on the famous couplet. At the end of the day, everyone is still disagreeing with Isaiah 43:10 when they say that we can become gods? I don't think this is a disputed passage in terms of translation. Are the shepherds allowed to teach something other than what it says?

I don't know, is there a scripture saying you will be damned for believing you'll become a God? Big "g".

[mass168]

I don't know, is there a scripture saying you will be damned for believing you'll become a God? Big "g".

For immediate example, Proverbs 30:5-6? In general though, I just don't feel comfortable at all with the idea of believing that we can become Gods, when the God of the Bible says that is nonsense. At best, I am very concerned by the Church's representation of this idea. doesn't give you the warm fuzzy they are teaching the right things.

[JLHPROF]

For immediate example, Proverbs 30:5-6? In general though, I just don't feel comfortable at all with the idea of believing that we can become Gods, when the God of the Bible says that is nonsense. At best, I am very concerned by the Church's representation of this idea. doesn't give you the warm fuzzy they are teaching the right things.

 

The flaw in this is that we do understand, even from the Bible alone, that (trinitarian beliefs aside) there ARE many Gods.  Eloheim (which is plural), Jehovah (whoever you believe that to be), the Holy Ghost (who has yet to even gain a physical body).

 

If you believe in the trinity then you can close off the possibliity of any future Gods or any Gods prior to our Godhead.

If you believe (as Mormons do) that tthe members of the Godhead are Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost and they are all separate beings, then the possibility of past and future Gods becomes much more likely.

 

And if you add in the belief that Heavenly Father is literally our father (instead of some nebulous creator) then it makes absolutely no sense to think that a child cannot grow up to be identical with their parent.  I personally fully believe and hope for the "G"odhood promised in the teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others.

Edited December 15, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

Mass,

Will we become one with Christ and have all that he has or not?

Edited December 15, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Mass, do you believe Revelation 3?

"20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

 21 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.

 22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."

[Calm]

John 10:

30 I and my Father are one.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

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..."

Psalm 136: O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever.

Psalm 95: For the Lord is a great God, and a great King above all gods.

The praise would be meaningless if those other gods were fakes. If they are fakes, then any man is greater than "all gods" that are below the God of gods, so why is it praise to call God "God of gods"....unless they are real gods or iow part of God's family or the Divine Council that is spoken of in the Bible btw.

Edited December 15, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

For immediate example, Proverbs 30:5-6?.

Not really.

[Calm]

Isaiah 43: "there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me"

The Jews believe this means that claiming Jesus is God is blasphemy. Why should we not accept their interpretation?

[mass168]

As a general reply to all last posters: 

 

Thank you for your thoughts! 

 

I was not really trying to stir up a trinitarian debate. I think that most Christians, when pressed, will admit there is some element of mystery to the idea of a trinity. At the same time, they will have an explanation for how all those verses you all quoted blend together in that trinitarian worldview. In other words, they believe all the inputs to the mental model, and they let the output say what it will. 

 

But in the original question I was trying to focus on LDS leadership. There doesn't seem to be any gray area in reading Isaiah 43:10 from an LDS perspective. If you believe that there are multiple Gods, but they are separate beings, which God is speaking here? Whoever he is, he's either 100% wrong and deluded, or he's right, and the couplet is wrong. 

[Calm]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/%22No_God_beside_me%22

Or there is nuance that you are missing.

"Another favorite scripture of the critics of the LDS doctrine of exaltation is Isaiah 43:10. They seem to believe it contradicts this doctrine when it says:

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.

Whether this passage is referring to false idols who represent deities that do not exist, or whether it refers to real divine beings who exist alongside and subordinate to Yahweh is not crucial for responding to this particular criticism. The passage specifically says "before" and "after" Yahweh. Since Yahweh has always existed, and since He will always exist no man can ever be exalted "before" or "after" Yahweh. All men who are exalted to godhood will be contemporaries of Yahweh, and will never precede nor follow Yahweh's existence. They will also become part of the divine council over which he presides.

Wherefore, as it is written, [the inhabitants of the Celestial Kingdom] are gods, even the sons of God (D&C 76:58)."

If we are the true children of the Father, then we "become" gods in the same way a child will grow up and "become" a man besides the man his father is. We are already part of his family, by his side, uncreated and eternal as he is. We are therefore as it says elsewhere in the Bible "gods" (ye are gods) because we are his family. That we will learn and grow into the role as we become one with the Son and share his throne through the gifts of the Atonement does not change the reality that we have always been a part of his family. Nor does it lessen the infinite magnificence of his gift and the boundlessness of God's love to have that preexistent connection.

Edited December 15, 2014 by calmoriah

[mass168]

calmoriah:

 

Proverbs 30:5-6 talk about being found a liar before God. Any sin is damning before God without atonement? 

[mass168]

Smith taught in the King Follet Discourse that we have imagined and supposed God was God from all eternity, and he would refute that idea. He went on to teach how God became God. By using that proof from fair, are you saying that Yahweh is a different God than who Smith was teaching about? 

[Calm]

calmoriah:

 

Proverbs 30:5-6 talk about being found a liar before God. Any sin is damning before God without atonement?

But if we are not telling a lie, we are not damned. You must demonstrate our belief is a lie and not just that we have a different interpretation than you which we hold as more pure revelation than the interpretations that come through the filter of the concept of the Trinity, that according to Jews and Muslims and most atheists and the one Buddhist I know is just as polytheistic as many Christians claim LDS Christians are.

"In other words, they believe all the inputs to the mental model, and they let the output say what it will."

The output being based on the assumptions brought to the text, no text exists in a vacuum of independent meaning. Even with computers, the output "says what it will" based on what definitions are applied to the values and any definition includes assumptions.

[Calm]

Smith taught in the King Follet Discourse that we have imagined and supposed God was God from all eternity, and he would refute that idea. He went on to teach how God became God. By using that proof from fair, are you saying that Yahweh is a different God than who Smith was teaching about?

No. I am saying that which makes God God is his eternal nature, just as a child is always human even if at times he is a baby, a youth, an adult, a senior or even just a spirit before birth and after death.

That God assume the role of Creator and Father, that Christ became the Son and Saviour, and the Spirit the Holy Spirit does not in any way change the fact of their eternal existence as their own unique selves.

From the same King Follett discourse:

"In April 1844, the Prophet taught: “I have another subject to dwell upon, which is calculated to exalt man. … It is associated with the subject of the resurrection of the dead,—namely, the soul—the mind of man—the immortal spirit. Where did it come from? All learned men and doctors of divinity say that God created it in the beginning; but it is not so: the very idea lessens man in my estimation. I do not believe the doctrine; I know better. Hear it, all ye ends of the world; for God has told me so; and if you don’t believe me, it will not make the truth without effect. …"

“I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it has a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits. … " [1]"

God, of course, is one of those eternal intelligences as stated in Abraham:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/3?lang=eng

" 18 ...if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.

 19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.

 20 The Lord thy God sent his angel to deliver thee from the hands of the priest of Elkenah.

 21 I dwell in the midst of them all; I now, therefore, have come down unto thee to declare unto thee the works which my hands have made, wherein my wisdom excelleth them all, for I rule in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, in all wisdom and prudence, over all the intelligences thine eyes have seen from the beginning; I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen."

Context is everything. If you wish to convince me your interpretation is the more inspired one, you will need to do more than simply claim the scripture must mean "this" especially given the huge disagreement on the Trinitarian concept even without the LDS revelation added to the mix.

Edited December 15, 2014 by calmoriah