This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Locked on 10/11/2010 8:29:50 PM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Poster’s request |
Posted on 10/11/2010 1:21:07 PM PDT by restornu
Numerous critics claim that LDS religion is blasphemous and even Satanic because we allegedly think we will become gods. They say we try to rob God and Christ of their glory, the same dark sin that caused Lucifer to be cast to hell in Isaiah 14.
When the critics make these claims, they never explain what LDS doctrine really is and what it is not. We absolutely DO NOT believe that we will ever be independent of God or no longer subject to Him.
We do not believe that we will take away His glory, but we only add to it by following Christ. For us, there is and always will be a need to be subject to God the Eternal Father, the Almighty God, the "God of gods and Lord of lords," as Deuteronomy 10:17 puts it. He is the One whom we worship and always will worship. The modern Apostle Boyd K. Packer has clarified this issue:
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.)
To those who follow Christ and receive His grace and power, great promises are extended. We are promised that we can receive "the fullness of God" through the grace of Christ (Ephesians 3:19).
Christ said that we can become one with Him, as He is one with the Father (John 17:20-23).
Paul said that Christians can become "joint heirs with Christ" and be glorified with Him (Romans 8:14-18).
He challenged us to pursue the example of Christ "who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Philippians 2:5,6).
Peter said that through Christ, we can "put on the divine nature" and receive great and precious promises (2 Peter 1:3-4).
Those who follow Christ can become "like Him" (1 John 3:2), can "inherit all things" (Rev. 21:7), and can be kings and priests before God (Rev. 1:6), sitting with Christ in His throne (Rev. 3:21).
Critics, how do you explain away such scriptures? They disclose an important aspect of early Christianity, the doctrine of "theosis," holding that man can become like God (much more evidence is given below).
After pondering the above-mentioned scriptures, let's turn to terminology. What do we call glorified, resurrected beings who, through Christ, receive eternal life and the fullness of God as joint-heirs with Christ, sitting with Him in his throne? Personally, I would prefer to call them angels who serve and represent God.
However, the word that is used in the Bible and in other LDS sources to describe such beings is not generally angels, but the much more controversial term, gods.
(In Doctrine and Covenants 132, "gods" are clearly higher than the angels - but they are nevertheless children of God and subject to Him.) Accept my apologies, but the choice of the term "gods" is not ours.
Christ himself spoke of humans when he quoted Psalms 82:6 and said, in John 10:34, "Ye are gods." As every serious Christian scholar knows, He was not saying that humans are God, but is often interpreted as saying that human representatives of God can be called "gods" in a very limited sense. Humans are not and will not be gods in the sense of Greek philosophy (absolute, ultimate, uncreated, independent beings).
No, the terms "gods" when used in the Bible and LDS writings may be meant in a more limited sense not radically different in meaning than "angels" (though a difference in LDS sources is that "angels" are single while "gods" dwell in eternal family relationships, as discussed below).
If we used the term "angels," the anti-LDS attacks would lose much of their zing. After all, how many people would be interested in seeing a movie called "The Angel Makers"? But the term "gods" is what God Himself has chosen to describe the divine potential of His sons and daughters. Let's now consider some examples.
The possibility of multiple "godlike" beings seems to be what Paul referred to when he said there are "gods many and lords many, but to us there is but one God, the Father" (1 Cor. 8:5,6). It also seems to be what David meant in Psalm 8:4,5 when he said that man is "a little lower than the gods."
The King James Version (and most translations) gives "lower than the angels," but the Hebrew word is "elohim" which means "gods." Commentators have long explained that this term, literally meaning "gods," is describing angels - divine beings serving or representing God.
The existence of other godlike beings is suggested by multiple scriptures that describe God as a "God of gods" (Deut. 10:17; Joshua 22:2, and Psalm 136:2). That phrase makes no sense if false pagan gods are meant, but perhaps it refers to angels as gods.
Psalm 82:1 likewise says that God "standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods." Scholars know that the ancient Jews, including those in New Testament times, that angels were often described as "gods." (E.g., John Strugnell, The Angelic Liturgy at Qumran in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum VII, [Congress Volume, Oxford, 1959], Leiden: Brill, 1960, pp. 336-338; or A.S. van der Woude, Oudtestamentische Studien, Vol. 14, 1965, pp. 345-373, as cited by Stephen Robinson, Are Mormons Christians?, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991, p. 67).
Not only angels, but even humans can receive the label "gods" in the scriptures. For example, the term "elohim" = "gods" is used to describe human judges in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9.
Here authorized servants of God are called "gods" - again in a limited sense. Exodus 7:1 says that Moses was to be "god to Pharaoh" - undoubtedly referring to Moses as an authorized represent of God.
(Also Adam, when he gained knowledge of good and evil, was said to have become "as one of us" by God in Genesis 3:22.) If the scriptures can call mortal judges and prophets "gods" in some sense, then that term is even more appropriate for immortal, resurrected beings who have become one with Christ and received the fullness of God.
A particularly interesting example is found in Psalm 82:6: "Ye are gods; and all of you children of the most High." Christ repeated that scripture in John 10:34-36 to defend Himself against charges of blasphemy:
Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
In other words, if the scriptures label mortals who receive the law (and thus represent God) as "gods," then why should the Jews be outraged when Christ says He is the Son of God?
Christ pointed out that Psalm 82:6 was not a mistake or a fluke, for He added the phrase "and the scripture cannot be broken" right after it, stressing that it was accurate and that its meaning could not be argued away.
Some have argued that the word "gods" really should be "judges." This argument fails completely. For detailed documentation on the use of "elohim" = "gods" in Psalm 82:6, and a refutation of the common argument that only "judges" and not "gods" is meant, see the article "Reconsidering Psalms 82:6: Judges or Gods?
A Proposal" by Ben McGuire and also "Maklelan, Psalm 82: 'elohim' as 'judges'? No." at Lehi's Library, where we see that extensive scholarship leads to this conclusion:
In conclusion, "judges" [instead of "elohim in Psalm 82:6] is simply a bizarre translation appealed to by two early Rabbinic texts in an attempt to avoid mentioning other gods.
The translation has been shown to be incorrect, has been shown not to have ever been used before those Rabbinic texts, and has been shown to be rejected outright by contemporary scholars, including prominent Evangelical scholars. The word elohim simply cannot mean "judges."
If the Bible can use the term "gods" in to describe non-ultimate but heavenly, angelic beings who represent God, then Bible-believing people should not be outraged when Latter-day Saints use that term in much the same way.
Our use of the term is clearly in a limited sense, referring to angelic, resurrected beings who receive great blessings and power from God, but remain subject to Him and serve and worship Him forever.
LDS doctrine on this needlessly controversial issue is similar to the teachings of C.S. Lewis, who also understood the divine potential of humans beings. Here is a quote from his book, The Grand Miracle (Ballantine Books, New York, 1970), p. 85 (on the last page of the essay, "Man or Rabbit?" in Chapter 11):
The people who keep on asking if they can't lead a good life without Christ, don't know what life is about; if they did they would know that "a decent life" is mere machinery compared with the thing we men are really made for. Morality is indispensable: but the Divine Life, which gives itself to us and which calls us to be gods, intends for us something in which morality will be swallowed up.
We are to be remade. All the rabbit in us will be swallowed up - the worried, conscientious, ethical rabbit as well as the cowardly and sensual rabbit.
We shall bleed and squeal as the handfuls of fur come out; and then surprisingly, we shall find underneath it all a thing we have never yet imagined: a real man, an ageless god, a son of God, strong, radiant, wise, beautiful, and drenched in joy. [emphasis mine] And from the same book, p. 65 (the last page of Chapter 8):
Christ has risen, and so we shall rise. St. Peter for a few seconds walked on the water, and the day will come when there will be a remade universe, infinitely obedient to the will of glorified and obedient men, when we can do all things, when we shall be those gods that we are described as being in Scripture.
Here is a related quote from Lewis's book, Mere Christianity (Collier Books, MacMillan Publ. Co., New York, 1943; paperback edition, 1960; p. 160 - the last paragraph of Chapter 9, "Counting the Cost," in Book IV):
"The command Be ye perfect [Matt. 5:48] is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible.
He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were "gods" and he is going to make good His words.
If we let Him - for we can prevent Him, if we choose -
He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness.
The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what he said."
Where did the highly respected C.S. Lewis get such doctrine?
From the Bible, which teaches us that we can indeed put on the divine nature and mature as sons and daughters of God, becoming like Him.
In my view, it is our status as children of God that gives us the potential to become heirs and the potential to mature and become more like the Father. Paul expresses such a concept in Romans 8:14-18:
"14 For as many as are lead by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.... 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God; 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified together; 18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
We can be joint-heirs with Christ. There is divine glory to be revealed within us, for we have a divine inheritance as children of God.
Beings who reach this potential could be called "gods" in a limited sense, for they serve the Father and are subject to Him forever. Just as earthly parents want their children to grow and become more like the parents, so our Father in Heaven wants us to grow and partake of his glorious gift of eternal life. It is not an instant process, but one that requires that we learn, obey, and strive, yet relying entirely on the grace of Christ in the process. This relationship between God and man is further affirmed in Hebrews 12:9,10:
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits and live?
10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but He [God] for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.
A key point here is that God is the Father of our spirits. Indeed, Paul in Acts 17:28 says "we are also his offspring." Our spirits existed before we were born into mortality. As sons and daughters of God, we witnessed the creation of the world and shouted for joy, according to Job 38:7. As spirit sons and daughters, we have inherited something divine within us.
We have been placed on earth to grow, to learn, to understand good and evil, to learn to choose on our own, and to be tried, for now we have a veil of forgetfulness over our memories of the premortal existence with God. We are also sent here to obtain a physical body which can be resurrected and glorified like the glorious and powerful body of Christ (Phil. 3:21).
There is glory waiting to be revealed in us, as Paul wrote in Romans 8:14-18 and as John wrote in 1 John 3: 2:
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him...
Growing to become more like Christ and more like our Father in Heaven should be our goal, as Christ has commanded us (Matt. 5:48). How do we grow in that way?
By following Christ with all of our heart, might, mind, and strength. Our Father in Heaven wants us to accept Christ and to follow and obey Him, that we might return to His presence and become partakers of His holiness and fullness (Heb. 12:10; Eph. 3:19), or, as Peter wrote in 2 Peter 1:3-10, "partakers of the divine nature":
3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall.
Peter outlines some of the things we must do to make our calling and election sure - but it is only through the grace of Christ that such an opportunity exists.
The goal of Christ and the Father is to help us grow and put on the divine nature, to become more like Christ and to be joint-heirs with Him.
Within us is the divine potential to fully become sons and daughters of God, living in His presence and sharing in the fullness of eternal life that is His. This profound truth is the target of some of the most vile attacks on our religion, yet it is a truth held and taught by the original Christian Church.
Fortunately, Latter-day Saints aren't the only Christian denomination that accept what Peter taught on this issue. Eastern Orthodoxy still retains much of the original Christian doctrine of theosis or deification.
Here's a quote from Orthodox writer, Dr. Seth Farber ("The Reign of Augustine," The Christian Activist: A Journal of Orthodox Opinion, Vol. 13, Winter/Spring 1999, pp. 40-45,56):
Eastern Christian theology, Orthodoxy, has not been marred by the misanthropic premises that have been characteristic of Western Christian theology, Roman Catholic and Protestant, for centuries [e.g., the concept that infants are already great sinners worthy of damnation, that man is totally depraved, etc. - see the bottom part of my page about Adam and the Fall]. From the early Greek fathers to modern Orthodox theologians, one dominant theme has sounded again and again: the purpose of the Incarnation was to make it possible for human beings to be reunited with God, to become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).
As St. Athanasius put it, "He (the Son of God) became man, that we might become God."
Accept it or not, it's hard to say this doctrine excludes one from Christianity unless we wish to condemn Orthodoxy and reject old St. Athanasius himself and even C.S. Lewis as cultists.
While we have noted that the divine potential of man is found in the Old Testament, further insight comes from the Old Testament manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
A great source for studying the Old Testament from the Dead Sea Scrolls is The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, translated and with commentary by Martin Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugen Ulrich (San Francisco, California: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999).
Numerous Old Testament passages are provided from the Dead Sea Scrolls and compared to the Masoretic text or Septuagint. The version of Psalm 135 from the Dead Sea Scrolls (The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, p. 568) differs in many ways from the Masoretic Text used to prepare most modern Bible translation.
One difference is the added emphasis given on "gods" in verses 5 and 6. Here is the DSS text, with changes relative to the Masoretic Text marked in italics:
5. I know that the LORD is great, and that our God is above all gods.
6. The LORD does what pleases him, in heaven and on earth, to do as he does; there is none like the LORD, and there is none who acts like the King of gods, in the seas and in all (their) depths.
"King of the gods" is an interesting title for God, similar to the title "God of gods" in Deut. 10:17, which is reiterated in Psalm 136:2. Such titles don't make much sense if the "gods" are imaginary, evil beings.
Would it be flattering to call someone the god of leprechauns and poltergeists? But the true God of the Bible, the only God with whom have anything to do, and to Whom all glory flows, is nonetheless properly praised as the God of gods. This makes sense in light of the divine potential of man.
The doctrine of divine human potential is easily misunderstood. To keep it clear, remember this: the growth and development and success of a child in no way detracts from the honor or glory of the parents, but adds to it.
If we participate in Eternal Life as heirs of God, we will be worshiping and glorifying God fully and wonderfully - not taking or usurping his glory. And we will more perfectly and fully be able to say that we are His children, and He is our God (Rev. 21:7), and glory be to His name forever.
LDS doctrine teaches that we can be joint-heirs with Christ and inherit all that the Father has, sharing in the incredible, unimaginable type of life that is called Eternal Life.
One important but easily misunderstood aspect of eternal life is eternal families.
We believe that families can be sealed for eternity in the Temple of God, so that the marriage of a husband and wife is not over at death, but persists into the eternities (if they want it to, and if they remain true to their covenants with God), as can family bonds.
Perhaps this is what Peter meant when he said that a husband and wife can become heirs together of the grace of life (1 Peter 3:7).
This marriage must be performed with the sealing power and Priesthood authority that Christ gave to Peter, which, among other things, allows a marriage or "sealing" performed on earth to be valid in heaven as well (Matt. 16:19).
(Temple marriage, like baptism, is an ordinance of change and covenant making which must be done in this mortal world, either while alive or by proxy for the deceased, not in heaven, which is a place of eternal relationships where new marriages are not performed.)
We also believe that those who receive eternal life and accept eternal marriage can be blessed with posterity in the next life, a concept known as "eternal increase."
Details have not been revealed, in spite of much speculation. But it seems that God's sons and daughters in the eternal family unit can in some way become "co-creators" with Him in the eternities, just as they can be "co-creators" with Him in this life in the bringing of children into the world.
He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were gods and he is going to make good His words. If we let Him - for we can prevent Him, if we choose
Where did the highly respected C.S. Lewis get such doctrine? This quote taken from Beyond Personality, Lewiss context comes in a chapter called Counting the Cost, and describes the process of sanctification that God begins at the moment one becomes a Christian and will continue until we are reunited after death and the judgment with our resurrected bodies, when we will be perfect, that is, complete, as creatures. In fact, the sentence immediately preceding this is He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. In the same small volume he explains,
What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God in the sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they are not things of the same kind. They are more like statues or pictures of God. (Lewis, Beyond Personality)
It is important that citations be placed in their proper context, otherwise they are used inaccurately and incorrectly. The greater citation by Lewis shows he never supported the mormon doctrine of exaltation.
****
Mere Christianity page 157- 159 CLICK Picture
Lewis regarded Mormons, and Jehovahs Witnesses, as heretics, and the doctrine within his writings speak out against them.
God: Creator And Ruler Of Many Worlds. While it is true that evolutionists may be divided between theistic and atheistic groups, yet most of those professing belief in God consider him to be an indefinable force, essence, or power of an incomprehensible nature. According to revelation, however, he is a personal Being, a holy and exalted Man, a glorified, resurrected Personage having a tangible body of flesh and bones, an anthropomorphic Entity, the personal Father of the spirits of all men. (D. & C. 130:22- 23; Moses 6:51, 57; Abra. 3:22-24; Jos. Smith 2:16-19.)
FYI, the above passage does not say that God was ever a sinful man. Just as Christ was born and became a man, though he was still God, He was sinless. Christ is a resurrected Personage having a tangible body of flesh and bones.
If you also believe that Christ(God) became man, then why is it a problem if Mormons say the same of God the Father? If you believe that Christ and the Father are one being, then you technically also believe that God the Father became a man and was resurrected but did not sin. Saying that only Chirst became a man would be like saying my left foot became a Baptist but the rest of me is a Mormon.
thank you resty - for as lewis goes on to defend the Trinity and make it clear that man will never have the attributes of God, clarifies the use of begotten and makes its usage clear regarding the Father and the Son within the Trinity.
“The Son exists because the Father exists: but there never was a time before the Father produced the Son”. (p 171)
“We are not begotten by God, we are only made by Him: in our natural state we are not sons of God, only (so to speak) statues.”(p. 177)
Lewis is not a closet mormon after all.
If your sins are washed away by the blood of Christ, if you are resurrected and if you live with Christ, if you sin no more, if you are a joint-heir with Christ, if you sit with Christ on his throne, if you have been faithful over a few things and are made ruler over many things, then what are you? A king unto the King of kings? A lord unto the Lord of lords? Why not a god unto the God of gods? It really comes down to semantics like the author states. We could call ourselves fish unto the Fish of fishes.
Obviously God calls us his children and himself our Father. God does not lie. We are his literal children and he is literally our Father as the scriptures say repeatedly. Therefore man is the literal family of God and even though we are fallen man and sinful, God provided a Savior, even Jesus Christ, that we can become like our Father and be perfected through the blood of Christ and become as He is and reach our divine potential and become gods with Christ as our Savior and God as our Father.
Nor is CS Lewis a prophet or the definer of all things Christian. But, he did talk about the divine nature of man on the divine potential of man that has some similarities to Mormon doctrine. The specific quotes from CS Lewis are not mainstream Christian ideas. Is it exact? No. Do all Christians ever agree on all doctrine? Hardly.
Lewis is not a closet mormon after all.
***
Never thought that, only appreciate his pondering and seeing things in perspective
Audio Lewis talking about eternal progression (starts to take place at the end of life)
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/cslewisbeyondpersonality.htm
Not if you bother to READ what he wrote. He makes it clear that man can never attain true god standing. He makes it clear that the Father was never a man, but eternal.
Did you even read this from my post?
We are not begotten by God, we are only made by Him: in our natural state we are not sons of God, only (so to speak) statues.(Mere Christianity, p. 177)
Kinda shows that the definitions of any divinity within man is not equated to mormon doctrine. Read further about Bios, you will see further divergence. The specific quotes from CS Lewis are not mainstream Christian ideas.
And where do you get that idea? The words he uses may change, but the concepts of theosis and sanctification he speaks to ARE mainstream Christian ideas - far more than mormon.
Do all Christians ever agree on all doctrine? Hardly.
Yet Lewis' writings, if you've bothered to READ them, show that the attempt to selectively quote him and apply definitions that he himself would not use and in reality refutes later in even the same book places a gap between Lewis and mormons far greater than any disagreements within Christianity.
Sorry resty - lewis does not talk about eternal progression in Beyond Personality. Lindsay may try to make that claim, but in that very same book Lewis states clearly -
What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God in the sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they are not things of the same kind. They are more like statues or pictures of God. (Lewis, Beyond Personality)
Lewis strips the whole foundational basis for eternal progression - pre-existence - and stomps on it in this sentence.
Rather than look to third stringers as lindsey, read your bible more.
Thank for the clarity
If you also believe that Christ(God) became man, then why is it a problem if Mormons say the same of God the Father? If you believe that Christ and the Father are one being, then you technically also believe that God the Father became a man and was resurrected but did not sin. Saying that only Chirst became a man would be like saying my left foot became a Baptist but the rest of me is a Mormon.
***
This has always puzzle me too
If one believes that Jesus was also then Father why does it bother them, when Jesus was also in the state of man.
Also Jesuse even said in John 5 He can do nothing but what seeth the Father do!
In John 5 & 9 Jesus makes a point of saying why He is here on earth.
17 ¶ But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
John 9:
4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
John 8: 28.
28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily,
19 verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man
I really think this turn into a riddle
The OT denies the Coming of the only begotten Son of Hevenly Father Jesus Chirst,
and the NT denies that Heavenly Father is the Father of Jesus Christ!
What you have always seem to overlook in our discussion as well as when Lewis is making a distinction between the Biological life and spiritual life.
Please read that passage carefully!
“But, he did talk about the divine nature of man on the divine potential of man that has some similarities to Mormon doctrine.”
Only if you start with mormonism and read into Lewis’ words. Otherwise, no.
That being said, I'll address THIS srntence:
Numerous critics claim that LDS religion is blasphemous and even Satanic because we allegedly think we will become gods.
What LDS members 'alledgely' think is min dreading on a mass scale.
There is no WAY we could know what MORMONs think; but we sure DO know what MORMONism has written: namely D&C 132:58-66
Read it for yourself and determine "what MORMONs think" about becoming GODS.
The Official Scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints © 2010 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved. Rights and use information. Privacy policy. |
Not if it goes off in a direction she doesn't like.
I wish I had a list of all the things that might "incur or provoke hostility" in Restornu; then I could be safe in posting.
So what you are saying is that The LDS Heavenly Father is subject to another God and that the LDS Heavenly Father is somehow not independent of the God that he worshiped when he was a man on another planet.
Do I have this correct?
My Dad always suspected SOMETHING funny went on!
and the NT denies that Heavenly Father is the Father of Jesus Christ!
HUH?
Ok; NOW what?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.