Do Mormons think they that they will become gods? [Open Thread]

Mormon Answers ^ | unknown | Jeff Lindsay

[Godzilla]

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.

[Godzilla]

Sorry . . . it doesn’t fly. Mormonism is a man-made cult with some rather bizarre beliefs, such as the planet Kolab, etc. That’s their doctrine . . . not mine.

I couldn't agree with you more. Problem is that when distilled down as you have done, mormons begin to squirm in realization of its man-made nature and try to justify those beliefs to deflect from that core.

[Godzilla]

so quickly has the same poster telling another poster to go somewhere else if they want to discuss their views.

that other poster was attempting to hijack the thread. One of the basic guidelines is to try to stay on topic (yes, i know they can stray substantially). However, given that the initial posting of the article forming the basis of this thread was hamstrung over the weekend, I wanted to make sure people had the opportunity to really be able to discuss it before too many bunny trails opened up.

[svcw]

This will be interesting place marker

[Godzilla]

I won’t discuss what “Mormons” believe, but I’d be happy to discuss what Mormonism teaches. It teaches that “God the Father” was once like us, and He himself has his own “God His Father”, who has his own, and so on.
It teaches that a man on this earth can aspire to the same “God the Father” status with future worlds.
So you decide if mormonism teaches that mormons can or will become “gods”.

Then you pretty well summarized it - mormonism teaches mormons can/will become gods. My question back is does the sources linsey cites actually SUPPORT is arguement or are they taken out of context, twisted and forced to support his 'model' or not.

[stuartcr]

I do not believe that anyone can actually rob God of anything, as per the thread.

[SENTINEL]

Not only do they teach that they will become gods, they teach THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER GODS since the beginning.

LDS Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham Chapter 4:
1 And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.
2 And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate, because they had not formed anything but the earth; and adarkness reigned upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of the Gods bwas brooding upon the face of the waters.
3 And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light.
4 And they (the Gods) comprehended the light, for it was abright; and they divided the light, or caused it to be divided, from the darkness.
5 And the Gods called the light Day, and the darkness they called Night. And it came to pass that from the evening until morning they called night; and from the morning until the evening they called day; and this was the first, or the beginning, of that which they called day and night.
6 And the Gods also said: Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and it shall divide the waters from the waters.
7 And the Gods ordered the expanse, so that it divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so, even as they ordered.
8 And the Gods called the expanse, Heaven. And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning that they called night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that they called day; and this was the second atime that they called night and day.
9 And the Gods ordered, saying: Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto bone place, and let the earth come up dry; and it was so as they ordered; 10 And the Gods pronounced the dry land, Earth......

Fortunately for we Christians, the LDS Church is not able to redact and ENTIRE CHAPTER of their own scripture.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
LDS Pearl of Great Price, Abraham Capter 4 Verse 3: And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light.
One only needs to read the first three verses of the Bible to expose the Mormon fraud.

[T Minus Four]

Only in the ecumenical thread is the presents of the Holy spirit welcome

Wow Resty, since when do you decide if and where the Holy Spirit is welcome?

Anyway, isn't it "gifts" of the Holy Spirit, LOL?

[CharlesWayneCT]

Actually, the ecumenical concept seemed a reasonable way to discuss the issue without falling into the baser attacks on mormon theology.

I’ve always wished we could bridge the gap between caucus, where only one religion’s point of view is allowed, and open, where people feel free to attack each other personally and harshly on any number of issues.

Maybe “ecumenical” in the end wasn’t the appropriate method, although the definition as given by the RM seemed to cover it well.

And the Ecumenical heading certainly would have allowed toleration for, and a healthy presentation, of opposing views, presented as a positive affirmation of one’s beliefs as opposed to an attack on the other beliefs. One can defend their beliefs by explaining them, and by doing so well can reveal a gross error in the alternate presentation, without having to say the words “gross error”.

But the way people responded in that other thread certainly revealed why we have so many caucus threads, beause it does seem like for a good number of freepers, it is impossible to discuss their religion as a positive affirmation rather than as an attack on what other poeple believe.

This may be beause our general political form of argument also seems geared toward tearing down what others say and believe rather than explaining what we think is the correct beliefs and positions. So maybe the laziness of argument is a general flaw, and not specific to religion threads.

It’s not like this thread has given me any better understanding of the conflict than the previous thread — on the contrary, the other thread was much better, although obviously I’m seeing it “post-restoration” so it is possible that the “good posts” are those that were restored.

The funny thing is when you remark about crying about the mods, it makes me wonder, because in the other thread some posts suggested that the moderator was making bad judgments, and at least one cried for the real religion moderator to come and fix things.

[T Minus Four]

Let’s don’t feed.....

[svcw]

Yes they do:

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, ...Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; ...and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, ...and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.

22 For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me.

(Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-22)

[Godzilla]

Not only do they teach that they will become gods, they teach THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER GODS since the beginning.

And gods before them, and more gods before that, ad infinitum. POGP - mormon scripture where smith states that heavenly father is the egyptian god "Min", an "ithyphallic" deity.

[svcw]

Yes they do:

Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, p.69 - p.70:

THE STRAITNESS OF THE WAY. Mortality is the testing or proving ground for exaltation to find out who among the children of God are worthy to become Gods themselves, and the Lord has informed us that "few there be that find it."

Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, p.97 - p.98:

ALL EXALTED MEN BECOME GODS. To believe that Adam is a god should not be strange to any person who accepts the Bible. When Jesus was accused of blasphemy because he claimed to be the Son of God, he answered the Jews: "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, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

[svcw]

Yes they do:

Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.39:

SONS OF GOD BECOME GODS. If the faithful, who keep the commandments of the Father, are his sons, then they are heirs of the kingdom and shall receive of the fulness of the Father's glory, even until they become like the Father. And how can they be perfect as their Father in heaven is perfect if they are not like him? . . . And if they receive his fulness and his glory, and if "all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs," how can they receive these blessings and not become gods? They cannot.

[Colofornian]

From the article: 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.

Here we go, folks. A tacit admission from a long-term Mormon apologist, Jeff Lindsay.

What "admission" am I talking about?

Well, whenever it seems we can actually get a response from Mormons as to how many gods they worship, they somehow try to emphasize it's only one.

* Some Mormons seem to constantly stress they worship one god...(many Mormons won't be address this question of how many gods they worship, because they know it's excludes Jesus Christ and they know that doesn't sound, PR-wise, to be very "Christian").
* Also, Mormons stress how they pray to one god...
Bottom line: That is how they somehow reconcile all those passages in the Bible, Book of Mormon and even Doctrine & Covenants that keep talking about "one God."

So how does that come into play here?

Well, Mr. Lindsay is saying that once a Mormon god becomes a full-fledged god, he is NEVER independent of the previous god. Well, that would also apply to the current god, who they call Heavenly Father.

The Mormon heavenly father is never independent of his god, as well.

What implications does that have?

Implication #1, Mormons, then are NEVER dealing with just one god, no matter what snowjob they give you.

There's always another Mormon god hanging on just around the corner...whether it's the wifely Mom god...or jesus' grandpa, grandpa-god...or great-grandpa god...or just even recognizing that they are guilty of the heresy of tri-theism, making Jesus and the Holy Spirit out to be separate gods.

So the next time a Mormon uses the term "one God," pull out your ruler. (Ya gotta start measuring how "straight" their face is)

I was just going to list all six implications right here...but instead, I'll break them up for easier digestion, and post the other five independent and back-to-back.

[faucetman]

I'm not sure I understand the restrictions, so I hope I'm not violating them.

Here's an idea. Why not have a split in the Mormon church? Those that want to be just another denomination of Christianity could be welcomed by most into the fold. Those that follow the more traditional views ....

(and wear the funny underpants) sorry I just couldn't control myself, BUT I am sure that God doesn't require anyone to wear any particular types of clothing here on earth. I digress.....

Those that follow the more traditional views can continue to become Gods (in their own minds) and worship the book of Mormon as scripture.

The Mormon church has moved away from past beliefs before. Instead of trying to convince everyone that you are Christians, why not actually become a Christian denomination? The rules are simple. We have a rule book. His Holy Word the bible. You claim to believe in the bible, yet you have to try to change it with another book. Like the Qu’ran needs the Hadith. It doesn't work.

I am more sympathetic to Mormons than many on this site. (it may not look like it, but I am). I am not anti Mormon. Like other religions and some denominations, they just don't follow what the bible says. If you stray too far from what the text says, you can't be a Christian. God will decide, but man can discern.

Jack Van Impe just did a sermon on Obama’s claim to be a Christian. He points out from God's Word (verse after verse after verse ....) and Obama’s own words how Obama doesn't believe in foundational Christian beliefs. Well, if you don't believe what the bible says, how can you be a Christian? You can't.

I would love to welcome (not that it is up to me) Mormons into Christ's church. I don't think you are there yet, but it looks like you are trying awfully hard to become “main stream”.

I think instead of trying to convince Christians that you are one of us, you should change some of your views and become one of us. He knows your heart.

[Colofornian]

Implication #2 Since Mr. Lindsay claims that no god is independent of the previous god, then those previous statements I've made that have been nay-sayed by Mormons come into play, after all.

I have continually pointed out that the Mormons worship a god who is a low-level god...NOT the Ultimate God of the Bible. He's a man who got the current god job opening based upon a flashy resume'.

And this god of the Mormons has no ultimate authority. And now Mr. Lindsay confirms it. He says the Mormon god is NEVER independent of the previous god's authority.

[Colofornian]

Implication #3 Well, what does that mean for the Mormon prayer life?

It means that the recipient of these prayers is involved in running requests to a higher authority. The Mormon god has no "buck stops here" authority, 'cause he's never independent of his god. He always has to honor and give his god glory; and you do that by respecting His authority.

[Colofornian]

Implication #4 What's the overall implication here?

Well, since the Mormon god is NEVER independent of his god. What does that mean? It means also that Jesus' grandpa-god is NEVER independent of the great-grandpa god. And the great-grandpa is NEVER independent of his god! And on and on.

Why, the Mormon "godhood" isn't just a web of 3 gods...it's a whole network of gods, innerconnected. No wonder Joseph Smith talked about a "council of gods!" It's a mighty big council!

[SENTINEL]

Isaiah 45:18 For this is what the LORD says— he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited— he says: "I am the LORD, and there is no other."

LDS Pearl of Great Price Chapter 4: the "gods" performed the creation.

Mormons are are much more like hindus or buddhists than Christians.

[Colofornian]

p>Implication #5 In fact, since...
...the Mormons don't even believe in ANY God who created all things (they claim their god is just an "organizer" of eternal matter);
...every son has to have a father:
...their god was once a son...
...there's no end to the Mormon strings of gods. They go back to infinity.

This is known as the Mormon philosophical problem of eternal regression.