Are You Being Led Astray By Lds Shepherds?

[Kenngo1969]

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.

Warm fuzzy?  Oh, my!  You're apparently new, so I'm somewhat inclined to cut you some slack, but it's considered poor form around these parts to ridicule the ministrations of the Holy Spirit.  I'll grant you that perhaps some LDS have used that description, but the fact of the matter is, it's a poor, wholly-inadequate attempt to describe the indescribable, the truly transcendent.  Further, I, along with several others, await your reply to Calmoriah.

[Stargazer]

Warm fuzzy?  Oh, my!  You're apparently new, so I'm somewhat inclined to cut you some slack, but it's considered poor form around these parts to ridicule the ministrations of the Holy Spirit.  I'll grant you that perhaps some LDS have used that description, but the fact of the matter is, it's a poor, wholly-inadequate attempt to describe the indescribable, the truly transcendent.  Further, I, along with several others, await your reply to Calmoriah.

 

He wrote

 

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.

 

but I don't see this as ridicule of the ministrations of the Holy Spirit.  I took it as not getting a comfortable feeling about Theosis, as if it were a non-biblical doctrine.

 

In point of fact Theosis is a recognized doctrine, although different Christian branches understand it different ways.  The LDS have a rather more advanced view of it, that's all.  I'd recommend the Wikipedia article on the subject, to get an overview of most of the points of view.

 

Divinization (Christian)

 

Perhaps mass168 might feel more warm and fuzzy about it after reading the article.

[mass168]

Apologies to everyone who may have had their "feathers ruffled" so far, I am noticeably new at this, so I appreciate everyone bearing with me. 

 

I have to admit, the idea that it is a mainstream view that we are co-eternal with God did not click with me until now. That further portion of the King Follet that cal posted triggered something in my mind. I will say that is a difficult idea for me to acccept, having been raised with the view that we started at a finite point in time, and we are not co-eternal. And I just cringe at the idea of being able to be equal with God in any manner. And the idea that comes along with it, that he was once as miserable of a sinner as myself, is disturbing. He is described throughout the Bible as being so very glorious and in a sense untouchable from a human perspective. 

 

With that in mind, it obviously becomes a little harder to argue from an LDS perspective that Isaiah 43:10 makes no sense. So I will have to study it further. 

[Calm]

Being one with God does not ever mean he is no longer our God.  Abraham makes that pretty clear.

 

The King Follett Discourse states that Christ did what he saw his father do, which may mean that God the Father was a sinless saviour for his world as well.  There is nothing in Joseph Smith's teaching that requires one to believe that God the Father was ever a sinner any more than we believe that Christ or the Spirit were sinners.

 

Christ is God and was once as man is, mortal, now he is as the Father is, fully exalted.  The couplet does not require God to be identical to sinful men.

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Was_God_once_a_sinner

 

The idea that God may once have been a sinner is speculation. Many Latter-day Saints find the idea impossible, while others consider it a possibility. Latter-day Saints do not generally speculate on events that happened prior to the war in heaven.

The details of God's mortality and existence before the war in heaven are largely unknown and have not been revealed. We do not have an exact answer to this question. For some, however, the idea that God may have once been a sinner like us gives added hope and faith in the atonement, and its ability to ultimately make us without sin regardless of what we may have done.

But the question to ask is: "Does it really matter all that much?" Whether it is true or it is not, does anything change? Knowing details of God's previous mortality doesn't change the fact that our Heavenly Father is still our Heavenly Father, who loves us very much. He has perfect knowledge, flawless character, and all power, and we can therefore have perfect faith in his ability to save and exalt his children. He sent His first born son, Jesus Christ, to sacrifice Himself for us. He wants us to be "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ."

 

He is described throughout the Bible as being so very glorious and in a sense untouchable from a human perspective. 

 

 

We cannot currently comprehend what we ourselves will be like when exalted having become one with Christ.  In a sense our future is untouchable by ourselves as mortal man….we could not touch it without God's gift of the Atonement for one very huge thing.

Edited December 15, 2014 by calmoriah

[mass168]

perhaps not Smith, but.. "As man is, God once was..?"  Doesn't that mean everything about Him? I have heard a lot of people admit that means he could have sinned. I mean we have to take the good with the bad. If we are going to say he overcame everything we have to, isn't sin a huge part of that? 

[Calm]

Other articles on the subject:

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Deification_of_man

[Calm]

perhaps not Smith, but.. "As man is, God once was..?"  Doesn't that mean everything about Him? I have heard a lot of people admit that means he could have sinned. I mean we have to take the good with the bad. If we are going to say he overcame everything we have to, isn't sin a huge part of that? 

I edited my post, reread it.

 

Christ overcame everything we did.  Was he a sinner?

[mass168]

Yea sorry, i posted before you edited. You're too fast  

 

You're twisting what I said about the couplet a little. I didn't say Christ ever sinned, I don't believe he did. The couplet says God was like we are now. I guess maybe you are implying that doesn't mean in every single way. In that case why would you assume that we can become like Him in every single way. 

 

I think that fair post is a non-answer. Furthermore, I think it does matter to ask that question, did God sin? If he did, the picture the Bible paints of Him being so incredibly holy and untouchable goes out the window to me, I realize that is a matter of interpretation though. 

[Stone holm]

If we let anyone lead us astray, it's our own fault. We may be sheep to the Lord, but He is where I draw the limit. We have brains, the Lord expects us to use them, no GA is going to lead anyone astray who has their brain engaged and an understanding heart.

[Calm]

You misunderstood.  I wasn't referring to what you said about the couplet, but what the couplet implied itself when coupled with the KF Discourse.

 

As I said before, the King Follett states that Christ only did what he saw his father do, so we can reverse it to "as Christ was, God the Father was before him".  

 

"What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. I saw my Father work out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom I shall present it to my Father so that he obtains kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt his glory. And so Jesus treads in his tracks to inherit what God did before. It is plain beyond disputation."

 

 

Christ was a sinless man and there is nothing in the couplet that prevents Christ being part of it and therefore it is likely if he did exactly what the Father did, "tread in his tracks" that the Father was sinless as well from the beginning.  

 

"As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become."

 

 

Christ is part of mankind in every way but one, it would seem to me, in that he was sinless (well and the whole Atonement thing, but I mean his normal lifestyle…he was born, eat, slept, talked and thought and asked questions, wore clothes, he grew up in a family, learned and progressed, became a man and apparently worked for a living for awhile and then became a teacher as prophets had been teachers before him, performed miracles as prophets had done before him, was sinless as no one had done before him and then he died).

 

"I think that fair post is a non-answer."  

 

 

Why?

Edited December 15, 2014 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

So are we all to be Saviours also in order to be Gods? Well the men anyway?

[Anne E. Prufe]

 

With all the focus on whether something said or taught is doctrine in the church these days,

I was wondering if there are any major things you have read in the church magazines or

training manuals or heard at General Conference talks that the Holy Spirit revealed to you

was actually a false teaching? Or do you believe everything that an LDS apostle or elder

tells you is really true?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

 

I am sure you will receive a wide variety of opinion and ideas from members in answer to your question.    However, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds scripture as the ultimate authority.  Anything that contradicts it is tossed aside.  Not only that, but we believe in harmony between all the standard works.  We accept the Biblical accounts in Genesis and Exodus are literal and welcome everything the Bible teaches.    We believe the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price is in harmony with the Bible.  http://www.josephsmithforum.org/research/papers/book-of-mormon-passages-for-biblical-christians/

 

Ultimately, we accept doctrine taught by our leaders as it is in harmony with the word of God.  

 

"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., edited by Bruce R. McConkie [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-1956], 3: 203. )

 

"It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everyting they read and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don’t care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer and revelator–please note that one exception–you may immediately say, “Well, that is his own idea.” And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard church works (I think that is why we call them “standard”–it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by the same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it." (President Harold B. Lee, “The Place of the Living Prophet, Seer and Revelator,” address to Seminaries and Institutes of Religion Personnel, BYU, 8 July 1964, p. 14; Church CES Manual, Living Prophets For A Living Church, 1974, p. 66)

[mass168]

Cal: I think I see where you're trying to go with your combining of King Follet and the Couplet. But I'm not sure why.

 

As far as I understand, the couplet represents the doctrine of eternal progression in it's most concise form. It is not specifically a statement about one person, but mankind in general. So I don't think you can make the exceptions you are trying to make for Christ and God. If you tell me, we can become like God is with all his power and glory and possessions and subordinates, you are making no exception to the half that people love to claim and affirm. So how can you make an exception to the other half and take away the possibility of sin, which is a pretty big part of the picture, perhaps the largest part? What is the problem that most of the population in question here have (aside from the outlier, Christ)? And again, going along with the topic of the thread, the very fact that many LDS are left to decide for themselves that a sinful God is a possibility, begs the question, where is the clarity from leadership? 

 

The reason I think that fair post was a non-answer:

 

"We do not have an exact answer to this question."

 

Additionally, they tried to downplay the importance of even asking the question. If you allow the possibility that God sinned, all kinds of things get very confusing and you pretty much have to drop the Bible out of the picture to make any sense of the situation.

 

One additional thing to think about that mucks up the situation a bit, Moroni 8:18.  

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

Additionally, they tried to downplay the importance of even asking the question. If you allow the possibility that God sinned, all kinds of things get very confusing and you pretty much have to drop the Bible out of the picture to make any sense of the situation.

Um, no you don't.

 

Do you believe that you can become perfect through Christ? Or better yet, how is perfection attained?

[mass168]

mola: Does it make any kind of sense to say that God sinned and Jesus didn't? Contradictory passages just start dropping like flies if you allow this idea leeway. 

 

Do I believe we can be united to God when we die through Christ? Yes. 

[bluebell]

mola: Does it make any kind of sense to say that God sinned and Jesus didn't? Contradictory passages just start dropping like flies if you allow this idea leeway. 

 

Do I believe we can be united to God when we die through Christ? Yes. 

 

I think Mola specifically wants to know if you believe that you can be perfected thru the Atonement of Christ-When you become a joint-heir with Christ and inherit all that the Father has, will you be perfect?

[mass168]

I believe we will be perfect. You are focusing on the other side of the question than I am though. Do you believe God Sinned? 

[JLHPROF]

I believe we will be perfect. You are focusing on the other side of the question than I am though. Do you believe God Sinned? 

 

Yes.

Probably.

Either he was once a Savior like our Jesus Christ and lived without any sin.

Or he was once a man like us and believed on his Savior and was cleansed from all his sins as we can be.

 

Either way, he is sinless.  If he did sin, then it would explain his great understanding, mercy, and perfect judgement of our lives.

And when we become as he is now, well, then we shall also be without sin.

 

(And since I also tend to find truth in Adam-God don't even get me started on the necessity of God sinning to provide exaltation for us.)

[Mars]

Yes.

Probably.

Either he was once a Savior like our Jesus Christ and lived without any sin.

Or he was once a man like us and believed on his Savior and was cleansed from all his sins as we can be.

 

Either way, he is sinless.  If he did sin, then it would explain his great understanding, mercy, and perfect judgement of our lives.

And when we become as he is now, well, then we shall also be without sin.

 

(And since I also tend to find truth in Adam-God don't even get me started on the necessity of God sinning to provide exaltation for us.)

 

Well that oughta be worth another 5 pages...

[mass168]

Moroni 8:18. If He is sinless now, He must have been sinless always? Do you see why I'm getting confused? 

[bluebell]

I believe we will be perfect. You are focusing on the other side of the question than I am though. Do you believe God Sinned? 

 

I honestly have no idea.  

 

I'm not sure that it matters.

[mass168]

Does consistency in scripture matter? Does God contradict himself? Are those important questions? 

[theplains]

I'm not sure that it matters.

 

Do you think you can escape God's judgment if you invent lies about him?

 

Regards,

Jim

[Mars]

Does consistency in scripture matter? Does God contradict himself? Are those important questions? 

 

Yes, it does matter.  Yes, they are important questions.

 

On a larger scale, this is a repeating theme I've dealt with.  Not only on this website, but in person with other people.  In all aspects of my life.  Any opinion on parenting, politics, religion, or my palate will leave me open to criticism on whether or not it's consistent.  "You can be pro x!  You're pro y!  X and y contradict each other!"  (Psst...  I'm human.  So are you, bee tee dubs...)

 

That's not to brush aside your questions.  No doubt someone who feels so strongly that God once sinned will come forward and defend their position in a way that seems to withstand your critique of it.  They will try to explain it in such a way that makes sense and isn't contradictory within Mormon Scripture.

 

The circle of what needs to line up may then expand.  "What about this particular Bible verse?" someone may say.  "What about this statement from an Mormon Church leader?  Doesn't it seem to contradict what you are saying?"  Where it goes from there is up to you.  Are you trying to see things how a Mormon does?  Or do you believe this is not likely to be true and are trying to convince us of such by demonstrating it?  I suggest you pick which you want to do, and then let us know.  It will help go a long way towards understanding.

[Mars]

Do you think you can escape God's judgment if you invent lies about him?

 

Regards,

Jim

 

Right, because Mormons knowingly and willingly go on inventing lies about God, giving God just pretext to condemn us to hell for it.

 

Come on, man, get off that high horse.