DNA and the Dead Sea Scrolls how do the pieces fit!

BYU TV ^ | 1998 | Scott Woodward

[restornu]

Click Video- Learn how DNA was able to sort out and match the DDS fragments

[sevenbak]

But the FACTS are that the 'ancients' did NOT include it in the Bible, as much as you'd like it to be there.

Sure they did, but then man took them out. The Catholics are right on this one!

Trust his words all you want; but as for me, I'll trust in what Jesus has said.

Always good advice! If I find where Jesus said to discard his words, I will. And just so you know, Paul mentions Enoch's great faith as the reason he was translated, and that he pleased God (Hebrews 11:5) so it's not just Jude that mentions him.

[sevenbak]

HE has??

Yes He has, why do you think the bible exists? Where did all these records come from if not written down for the Lords purposes?

Then ALL nations have records of the TRUTH of GOD?

The ones that God has spoken to, yes. See verse 11 again, they write the words the Lord speaks to them.

[sevenbak]

I like it!

[sevenbak]

And lest you think otherwise, I forgot to add that I thought Narnia was brilliant, both the books and movie. C.S. Lewis was truly a master Christian storyteller. Those with ears to hear, hear it plainly. The atonement of Christ is real, and he certainly got it... and told of it!

[Reno232]

Can you imagine?

[MHGinTN]

If there were any doubt as to what the Mormonism Apologists seek to do, the following assertion should remove any doubt from what spirit of confusion they work:

I appreciate your fervor & respect your beliefs but your indignant tone does you a disservice when faced w/ viable alternatives to you beliefs. Reno 232 Written like a true blind servant of Satan! Indignant? HAH! How about get thee behind us, Satan!

This Mormon poster wants all to consider Mormonism the most pure restored form of Christianity. The poster makes post after post seeking to sow doubt and create confusion for a new Christian, a weak Christian, or a seeker about Christ, into which doubt the Mormonism Apologists are quick to spread their demon seed of Mormonism and Joseph Smithism heresies. Let no one doubt these apologists are all about trying to destroy any good seed which may have fallen upon stony ground or amongst weeds, to be supplanted with the fertile heresies of Mormonism. Mormonism is not Christianity; Mormonism is a false look-a-like using the name Jesus Christ as a means to fool the unwary and stumble those weak in their faith of Jesus Christ. 'Viable alternatives'? That is the stuff of demonic work, seeking to sow doubt and confusion, clearly.

[JRochelle]

Are you claiming that C.S. Lewis was a Mormon?

[GLDNGUN]

That was not what I said!

I said in the OT Moses spoke to Jehovah (Jesus). and than I pointed out in the NT and JSH that Heavenly Father introduce his only begotten Son.

Ok, let's review.

Someone posted:

Those who claim Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Son, fail to grasp basics in Scripture or intend to deceive.

YOUR response to that was:

You forget that Moses did see God face to face and even return with a red face and covered his face

You say no man has seen God and that is true but God can elevate a man from his mortal status to a transfiguration for a period of time.

It is quite clear that you are stating that Moses saw GOD, and you are trying to use that as "proof" that indeed Joseph Smith did see GOD along with His Son, Jesus Christ. You used and many other Mormons have used this to rebut Christians who bring up the Biblical passage that says "NO MAN HAS SEEN GOD". The typical response is "well, Moses saw God "face to face", so it's obvious man CAN see God, so that is why the argument that Joseph Smith could not have seen God is bogus". Indeed, you try to explain how it is that Moses and Joseph Smith could have seen God if the Bible says NO MAN has seen God by coming up with "God can elevate a man from his mortal status to a transfiguration for a period of time." Again, you are obviously stating that this is what happened to Moses and Joseph Smith, allowing them to see GOD.

Now then, I will simply point out what I pointed out before. According to LDS doctrine, Moses DID NOT SEE GOD. And DON'T play word games here. When you say GOD, you and every Mormon is talking about GOD the Father, not His Son, Jesus Christ, so don't even go there. According to LDS doctrine, Moses saw Jehovah and NOT GOD the Father. So how does Moses seeing Jehovah in any way lend credibility to Joe Smith's story that he saw GOD the Father???

It doesn't. I'll repeat my earlier statement. Mormons who try this argument are either trying to be deceptive or don't know their own doctrine.

Now then, would you agree that Moses did NOT see God the Father and therefore in NO WAY proves that Joe Smith nor any other man has seen the "face" of God?

[sevenbak]

I guess you haven’t been following the thread. I was responding to the age old accusation that we believe in the deification of man. There are many that have held this view, not just Mormons. See post 403:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1897091/posts?page=403#403

Here’s C.S. Lewis’s quote again:

C. S. Lewis, considered by many as the twentieth century’s foremost proponent of “orthodox” Christianity and quoted elsewhere by the authors, claimed, “There are no ordinary people. We live in a society of possible gods and goddesses” (Weight of Glory, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company [Grand Rapids, Michigan], pp. 1P15)...

[GLDNGUN]

This Mormon poster wants all to consider Mormonism the most pure restored form of Christianity. The poster makes post after post seeking to sow doubt and create confusion for a new Christian, a weak Christian, or a seeker about Christ, into which doubt the Mormonism Apologists are quick to spread their demon seed of Mormonism and Joseph Smithism heresies...

This is why I actually believe that GOOD for the glory of God will come out of Mitt Romney running for President. First of all, REAL Mormon doctrine (not the milk in the Book of Mormon that the LDS Church doesn't even follow) is being exposed RIGHT HERE and many other places. Many uninformed people are asking "so, what DOES the LDS Church teach?" and they are finding out. Finding out now before the 2 guys in suits knocks on their door can only help to equip them with the truth and help them to avoid falling for the "bait and switch" game the LDS Church plays.

As the unorthodox beliefs of the LDS Church become MAINSTREAM knowledge, they will have a very hard time gaining new converts, except for those born into the Church. Heck, they are already having a very hard time and their growth rate has been dropping dramatically. This will only increase now.

Ultimately, with more of their dirty laundry aired, the LDS Church will have little choice if they continue to desire to be considered a "Christian" church. They will have to continue backing off their doctrines that are in direct contradiction to orthodox Christianity. When you think about it, the LDS Church has been trying to move closer to Christianity ever since getting rid of polygamy. Offering priesthood to blacks is a major example, as is the altering of their temple ceremonies.

The parts of the LDS temple ceremonies that were most offensive to Christians and publicized WERE REMOVED without notice by the LDS Church. The implications for Mormons here is enormous. If the previous temple ceremony was indeed given by God, then the LDS Church had no business changing it. If the ceremony was in error, then that means Joseph Smith was in error when he set it up in the first place. It would also mean that the Christians who were saying "Hey, that is outrageous!" were RIGHT and the LDS Church was WRONG. Again, that would mean Christians have a better knowledge of what God wants in a Mormon temple ceremony than the Mormon Church itself.

Just as the RLDS Church has moved in the direction of becoming a more Christian church, I see the LDS Church doing the same, and Romney's running can only expedite the move, even if indirectly and unintentionally.

[sevenbak]

I’m not a betting man, but if I were, I’d place a sizable wager against your predictions.

[GLDNGUN]

In quoting the page from FAIR, you for someone "unknown" reason left out the following...Some of the above statements may mean, "Man can be godlike," instead of the LDS emphasis that man can become a god

At least the FAIR author could admit what you failed to.

The verses you quote are of course taken out of context, or not even applicable.

[restornu]

It seem only a few in their own minds here who are anit LDS think that the LDS are not knowledgeable about our Faith.

Those converted to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints had a witness from the Holy Ghost and it was written in our souls from birth the truth!

Now the many things that the Bible reported and the things MS was reporting did not compute!

That is why we are seekers!

To be honest it never occured to me to look towards the Mormon but I am thankful God did not give up on me!

Eveyone of us who have a testamony knows our Master voice!

All things you fine offensive and have taken our of context or presents in an unfavoable light, is music to our ears!

Everytime the Church is kicked the more coververts we receive because after investigating those who are His fine their way home!

So this election is a good for those seeking the Lord!

[sevenbak]

Well, if you want the entire FAIR article, it has the full context of these quotes. You may not want to see these...they are toward the bottom. Pay special attention to the early Chruch fathers...

Critics claim that the doctrine of human deification is unbiblical, false, and arrogant.

Related claims include:

• Mormons believe they will 'supplant God'
• Belief in theosis, or human deification, implies more than one "god," which means Mormons are "polytheists."

[edit]

Source(s) of the Criticism

• Ed Decker, The Godmakers
• Ed Decker, The Godmakers II
• Walter Martin, Kingdom of the Cults (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1997), 226 and elsewhere.

[edit]

Supplanting God?

The first thing we must realize when we study this principle is that

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 Elohim, the Father. He is God. Of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him. ^[1]

A belief in human deification does not mean that the LDS believe their worship is or will be properly directed at anyone but God the Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ.

Non-LDS church historian Ernst Benz insisted that the doctrine of deification was present in the early Church, and pointed out a potential risk for those who do not understand it:

Now this idea of deification could give rise to a misunderstanding—namely, that it leads to a blasphemous self-aggrandizement of man. If that were the case, then mysticism would, in fact, be the sublimist, most spiritualized form of egoism. But the concept of imago dei, in the Christian understanding of the term, precisely does not aspire to awaken in man a consciousness of his own divinity, but attempts to have him recognize the image of God in his neighbor. Here the powerful words of Jesus in Matt. 25:21–26 are appropriate and connected by the church fathers to imago dei...

Hence, the concept of imago dei does not lead toward self-aggrandizement but rather toward charity as the true and actual form of God's love, for the simple reason that in one's neighbor the image of God, the Lord himself, confronts us. The love of God should be fulfilled in the love toward him in whom God himself is mirrored, in one's neighbor. Thus, in the last analysis, the concept of imago dei is the key to the fundamental law of the gospel—"Thou shalt love . . . God . . . and thy neighbor as thyself" (Luke 10:27)—since one should view one's neighbor with an eye to the image that God has engraven upon him and to the promise that he has given regarding him.^[2]

[edit]

UnChristian?

Critics insist that the doctrine of theosis is unBiblical and unChristian. Unfortunately for the critics, a review of Christian history illustrates that this doctrine was and is a common belief of many Christians; modern critics are perhaps the exception, rather than the rule.

[edit]

Irenaeus

Saint Irenaeus (AD 180), who may justly be called the first Biblical theologian among the ancient Christians, was a disciple of the great Polycarp, who was a direct disciple of John the Revelator.^[3] Irenaeus is not a heretic or unorthodox in traditional Christian circles, yet he shares a belief in theosis:

While man gradually advances and mounts towards perfection; that is, he approaches the eternal. The eternal is perfect; and this is God. Man has first to come into being, then to progress, and by progressing come to manhood, and having reached manhood to increase, and thus increasing to persevere, and persevering to be glorified, and thus see his Lord. ^[4]

Like the LDS, Irenaeus did not believe that this belief in any way displaced God, Christ, or the Holy Ghost:

there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption....Since, therefore, this is sure and stedfast, that no other God or Lord was announced by the Spirit, except Him who, as God, rules over all, together with His Word, and those who receive the Spirit of adoption.^[5]

Yet, Irenaeus—whom it is absurd to exclude from the ranks of orthodox Christians—believed in theosis in terms which agree with LDS thinking on the matter:

We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods.^[6]

Also:

How then will any be a god, if he has not first been made a man? How can any be perfect when he has only lately been made man? How immortal, if he has not in his mortal nature obeyed his maker? For one's duty is first to observe the discipline of man and thereafter to share in the glory of God.^[7]

And:

Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, of his boundless love, became what we are that he might make us what he himself is.” ^[8]

And:

But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, "I have said, Ye are gods, and all sons of the Most High." To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the "adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father."” ^[9]

And, Irenaeus considers the doctrine clearly Biblical, just as the LDS do:

For he who holds, without pride and boasting, the true glory (opinion) regarding created things and the Creator, who is the Almighty God of all, and who has granted existence to all; [such an one, ] continuing in His love and subjection, and giving of thanks, shall also receive from Him the greater glory of promotion, looking forward to the time when he shall become like Him who died for him, for He, too, "was made in the likeness of sinful flesh,"to condemn sin, and to cast it, as now a condemned thing, away beyond the flesh, but that He might call man forth into His own likeness, assigning him as [His own] imitator to God, and imposing on him His Father's law, in order that he may see God, and granting him power to receive the Father; [being] the Word of God who dwelt in man, and became the Son of man, that He might accustom man to receive God, and God to dwell in man, according to the good pleasure of the Father.^[10]

Further quotes from Irenaeus available here.

Said one Protestant theologian of Irenaeus:

Participation in God was carried so far by Irenaeus as to amount to deification. 'We were not made gods in the beginning,' he says, 'but at first men, then at length gods.' This is not to be understood as mere rhetorical exaggeration on Irenaeus' part. He meant the statement to be taken literally.^[11]

[edit]

Clement of Alexandria

Clement (AD 150-215), an early Christianleader in Alexandria, also taught the doctrine of deification:

yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.^[12]

And:

...if one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God...His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes god, since God wills it.^[13]

Those who have been perfected are given their reward and their honors. They have done with their purification, they have done with the rest of their service, though it be a holy service, with the holy; now they become pure in heart, and because of their close intimacy with the Lord there awaits them a restoration to eternal contemplation; and they have received the title of "gods" since they are destined to be enthroned with the other "gods" who are ranked next below the savior.^[14]

[edit]

Justin Martyr

Justin the Martyr said in 150 A.D. that he wishes

to prove to you that the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons... in the beginning men were made like God, free from suffering and death, and that they are thus deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest...^[15]

[edit]

Athanasius

In 347, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria and participant in the council of Nicea, said:

the Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods....just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both defied through His flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life...[we are] sons and gods by reason of the word in us.^[16]

He also states that Christ "became man that we might be made divine." ^[17]

[edit]

Augustine

Augustine (354-430), considered one of the greatest Christian Fathers, said

but He himself that justifies also defies, for by justifying He makes sons of God. For He has given them power to become the sons of God, (John 1:12). If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.^[18]

[edit]

Jerome

Jerome (A.D. 340-420) also described the deification of believers as an act of grace, which matches the LDS understanding precisely:

“I said 'you are gods, all of you sons of the most high.’" let Eunomius hear this, let Arius, who say that the son of God is son in the same way we are. That we are gods is not so by nature, but by grace. “but to as many as receive Him he gave power to becoming sons of God” I made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. We are called gods and sons!...[Christ said] "all of you sons of the Most High," it is not possible to be the son of the Most High, unless He Himself is the Most High. I said that all of you would be exalted as I am exalted.^[19]

Jerome goes on to say that we should

give thanks to the God of gods. The prophet is referring to those gods of whom it is written: I said ‘you are gods’ and again ‘god arises in the divine assembly’ they who cease to be mere men, abandon the ways of vice an are become perfect, are gods and the sons of the most high...^[20]

[edit]

Modern Christian exegesis

The Westminister Dictionary of Christian Theology describes "deification" thusly:

Deification (Greek Theosis) is for orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, according to the Bible, is ‘made in the image and likeness of God’...it is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become God by grace. This doctrine is based on many passages of both O.T. and N.T. (Ps. 82: (81) .6; 2Pet. 1:4), and it is essentially the teaching both of St. Paul, though he tends to use the language of filial adoption (Rom. 8:9-17, Gal. 4:5-7) and the fourth gospel (John 17:21-23).^[21]

Joseph Fitzmyer wrote:

The language of 2 Peter is taken up by St. Irenaeus, in his famous phrase, ‘if the Word has been made man, it is so that men may be made gods; (adv. Haer v, pref.), And becomes the standard in Greek theology. In the fourth century St. Athanasius repeats Irenaeus almost word for word, and in the fifth century St. Cyril of Alexandria says that we shall become sons ‘by participation’ (Greek methexis). Deification is the central idea in the spirituality of St. Maximus the confessor, for whom the doctrine is corollary of the incarnation: ‘deification, briefly, is the encompassing and fulfillment of all times and ages’,...and St. Symeon the new theologian at the end of the tenth century writes, ‘he who is God by nature converses with those whom he has made gods by grace, as a friend converses with his friends, face to face...’

Finally, it should be noted that deification does not mean absorption into God, since the deified creature remains itself and distinct. It is the whole human being, body and soul, who is transfigured in the spirit into the likeness of the divine nature, and deification is the goal of every Christian.^[22]

According to Christian scholar G.L. Prestige, the ancient Christians “taught that the destiny of man was to become like God, and even to become deified.”^[23]

William R. Inge, Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote:

"God became man, that we might become God" was a commonplace of doctrinal theology at least until the time of Augustine, and that "deification holds a very large place in the writings of the fathers...We find it in Irenaeus as well as in Clement, in Athanasius as well in Gregory of Nysee. St. Augustine was no more afraid of deificari in Latin than Origen of apotheosis in Greek...To modern ears the word deification sounds not only strange but arrogant and shocking.^[24]

Yet, these "arrogant and shocking" doctrines were clearly held by early Christians!

This view of the early Christians' doctrines is not unique to the Latter-day Saints. Many modern Christian writers have recognized the same doctrines. If the critics do not wish to embrace these ancient doctrines, that is their privilege, but they cannot logically claim that such doctrines are not "Christian." One might fairly ask why modern Christians do not believe that which the ancient Christians insisted upon?

[edit]

UnBiblical?

The previous section demonstrates that theosis has been taught by many Christians through the centuries. They pulled these beliefs from the Bible itself.

Matthew Brown compared a few descriptions between God and man in the following:

Aspect	Jesus Christ	The Saints
Crown	Rev. 14:14	James 1:12, Rev. 2:10, Rev. 4:4,10
White robe	Matt. 17:2, Mark 9:3, Luke 9:29	Rev. 6:11, Rev. 7:9-14
Scepter	Heb. 1:8	Rev. 2:26-27
Throne	Rev. 3:21	Rev. 3:21
Heir of God	Rom. 8:17	Rom. 8:14-21, Gal. 4:1-7
Title of "son"	Heb. 1:5, Heb. 5:5, John 3:1, Phillipians 2:15, 2Pet. 1:4	1John 3:1-2, Rom. 8:14, John 1:12, 1John 1:12, Gal. 3:26
King and priest	John 1:49, Heb. 3:1	Rev. 1:6, Rev. 5:10
Perfect	Matt. 5:48	Matt. 5:48
One with God	John 4:11John 17:20-21, John 10:30	John 17:21-23

[edit]

Scriptures

Theosis is discussed in the following scriptures:

• Rom. 8:16-17
• Luke 6:40
• Heb. 12:23
• Gal. 4:7
• Matt. 5:48
• Psalm 82:5-6
• Rev. 3:21
• 2Pet. 1:4
• 2Cor. 3:18
• Acts 17:29
• 1Pet. 3:7
• Dan. 12:3

[edit]

Conclusion

In regard to the Mormon doctrine, non-LDS scholar Ernst W. Benz has observed

One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the ancient Church than the precursors of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin.^[25]

[edit]

Endnotes

1. [back]  Boyd K. Packer, "The Pattern of Our Parentage," Ensign (November 1984): 69. off-site
2. [back] Ernst W. Benz, "Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God," in Truman G. Madsen (editor), Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian parallels : papers delivered at the Religious Studies Center symposium, Brigham Young University, March 10-11, 1978 (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center , Brigham Young University and Bookcraft, 1978), 215–216. ISBN 0884943585. Reprinted in Ernst Benz, "Imago dei: Man as the Image of God," FARMS Review 17/1 (2005): 223–254. off-site PDF link Note: Benz misunderstands some aspects of LDS doctrine, but his sketch of the relevance of theosis for Christianity in general, and Joseph Smith's implementation of it, is worthwhile.
3. [back]  Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers: A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius (London: Oxford University Press, 1956), 16–17. ISBN 0192830090.
4. [back]  Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers: A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius (London: Oxford University Press, 1956), 94. ISBN 0192830090.
5. [back]  Irenaeus, "Against Heresies," () Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:{{{start}}}–{{{end}}}. ANF ToC off-site This volume
6. [back]  Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers: A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius (London: Oxford University Press, 1956), 94. ISBN 0192830090.
7. [back]  Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers: A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius (London: Oxford University Press, 1956), 95–96. ISBN 0192830090..
8. [back]  Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers: A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius (London: Oxford University Press, 1956), 106. ISBN 0192830090.; Citing Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.38 cp. 4.11.
9. [back]  Irenaeus, "Against Heresies," () Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:419, chapter 6. ANF ToC off-site This volume
10. [back]  Irenaeus, "Against Heresies," () Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:450, chapter 6. ANF ToC off-site This volume
11. [back]  Arthur C. McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought, Vol. 1—Early and Eastern: From Jesus to John of Damascus (New York: Scribner's Sons, 1932), 141.
12. [back]  Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks, 1.^{[citation needed]}
13. [back]  Clement of Alexandria, Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 3.1 see also Clement, Stromateis, 23.^{[citation needed]}
14. [back]  Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers: A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius (London: Oxford University Press, 1956), 243–244. ISBN 0192830090.; Stromata 7:10 (55–56).
15. [back]  Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 124.
16. [back]  Athanasius, Against the Arians, 1.39, 3.39.
17. [back]  Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 54.
18. [back]  Augustine, On the Psalms, 50:2.
19. [back]  Jerome, The Homilies of Saint Jerome, 106–107.
20. [back]  Jerome, The Homilies of Saint Jerome, 106–353.
21. [back] Alan Richardson (editor), The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology (Westminster: John Knox Press, 1983). ISBN 0664213987. (emphasis added).
22. [back]  Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Pauline Theology: a brief sketch (Prentice-Hall, 1967), 42. AISN B0006BQTCQ.
23. [back]  G.L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought (London Press, 1956), 73.
24. [back]  William Ralph Inge, Christian Mysticism (London, Metheun & Co., 1948[1899]), 13, 356.
25. [back]  Ernst W. Benz, "Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God," in Truman G. Madsen (editor), Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian parallels : papers delivered at the Religious Studies Center symposium, Brigham Young University, March 10-11, 1978 (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center , Brigham Young University and Bookcraft, 1978), 215–216. ISBN 0884943585. Reprinted in Ernst Benz, "Imago dei: Man as the Image of God," FARMS Review 17/1 (2005): 223–254. off-site PDF linkNote: Benz misunderstands some aspects of LDS doctrine, but his sketch of the relevance of theosis for Christianity in general, and Joseph Smith's implementation of it, is worthwhile.

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]

FAIR wiki articles

Theosis and related at FAIR

• LDS are not Christians?
• Cult, LDS Church is
• Deification of man - main article
  • Other quotes
• Downplaying the King Follett Discourse

[edit]

FAIR web site

Theosis and related at FAIR

• FAIR Topical Guide: Deification FAIR link
  
• Michael W. Fordham, "Does President Gordon B. Hinckley Understand LDS Doctrine?" FAIR link (Key source)

[edit]

External links

Theosis and related links

• Ernst W. Benz, "Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God," in Truman G. Madsen (editor), Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian parallels : papers delivered at the Religious Studies Center symposium, Brigham Young University, March 10-11, 1978 (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center , Brigham Young University and Bookcraft, 1978), 215–216. ISBN 0884943585. Reprinted in Ernst Benz, "Imago dei: Man as the Image of God," FARMS Review 17/1 (2005): 223–254. off-site PDF link Note: Benz misunderstands some aspects of LDS doctrine, but his sketch of the relevance of theosis for Christianity in general, and Joseph Smith's implementation of it, is worthwhile.
• David Bokovoy, "Ye Really Are Gods": A Response to Michael Heiser concerning the LDS Use of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John; Review of "You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82," by Michael S. Heiser," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007): 267–313. off-site PDF link wiki
• Donald Q. Cannon, "The King Follett Discourse: Joseph Smith's Greatest Sermon in Historical Perspective," Brigham Young University Studies 18:2 (1978): 179. PDF link
• Donald Q. Cannon, Larry E. Dahl, and John W. Welch, "The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation," Ensign (January 1989): 27–33. off-site
• Van Hale, "The Doctrinal Impact of the King Follett Discourse," Brigham Young University Studies 18:2 (1978): 209. PDF link
• Michael S. Heiser, "Israel's Divine Counsel, Mormonism, and Evangelicalism: Clarifying the Issues and Directions for Future Study," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007): 315–323. off-site PDF link wiki
• Michael S. Heiser, "You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007): 221–266. off-site PDF link wiki
• Stan Larson, "The King Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text"," Brigham Young University Studies 18:2 (1978): 193. PDF link (Key source)
• Jeff Lindsay, "The Divine Potential of Human Beings: The Latter-day Saint Perspective," JeffLindsay.com (accessed 30 March 2007) off-site
• Gerald N. Lund, "Is President Lorenzo Snow's oft-repeated statement 'As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be'] accepted as official doctrine by the Church?," Ensign (February 1982): 38. off-site
• Keith Norman, "Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology," FARMS Occasional Papers, (2000). off-site
• Keith E. Norman, "Deification, Early Christian," Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, (New York, Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 1:369–370. ISBN 002904040X. off-site off-site
• Keith Norman, "Divinization: The Forgotten Teaching of Early Christianity," Sunstone (Issue #1) (Winter 1975): 14–19. off-site off-site
• Blake T. Ostler, "Review of The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis by Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish," FARMS Review of Books 8/2 (1996): 99–146. off-site PDF link
• David L. Paulsen and R. Dennis Potter, "How Deep the Chasm? A Reply to Owen and Mosser's Review," FARMS Review of Books 11/2 (1999): 221–264. off-site PDF link
• Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, "Comparing LDS Beliefs with First-Century Christianity" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, no date). off-site
• Daniel C. Peterson, "'Ye Are Gods': Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind," in The Disciple As Scholar: Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, edited by Richard Lloyd Anderson, Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges, (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2000), 471–594. ISBN 0934893497. ISBN 978-0934893497. off-site direct off-site
• Stephen E. Robinson, "The Doctrine of Deification," in Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1993), 60–65. off-site FAIR link GospeLink
• Jordan Vajda, "'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization," FARMS Occasional Papers, (2002). off-site

[edit]

Printed material

Theosis and related printed material

• K. Codell Carter, "Godhood," in Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 553-55.
• Daniel H. Ludlow, "Eternal Life or Exaltation within the Celestial Kingdom," in Daniel H. Ludlow, Selected Writings of Daniel H. Ludlow: Gospel Scholars Series (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000), 416-20.
• Robert L. Millet, "Do the Mormons really believe that men and women can become gods?" in Robert L. Millet, The Mormon Faith: Understanding Restored Christianity (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1998), 175-77, 192-94.
• Robert L. Millet, "The Doctrine of Godhood in the New Testament," in The Principles of the Gospel in Practice (Sandy, UT: Randall Book, 1985), 21-37.
• Thomas S. Monson, An Invitation to Exaltation (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997), 18 pp.
• David L. Paulsen, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses," Harvard Theological Review 83 (1990): 108–109.
• Lorenzo Snow, "As God Is, Man May Be," in Lorenzo Snow, Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, compiled by Clyde J. Williams, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984), 2–9. ISBN 0884945170.

Retrieved from "http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Deification_of_man"

Views

• Article
• Discussion
• Edit
• History

Personal tools

• Log in / create account

FAIR Wiki

• Main Page
• Table of Contents
• Recent changes
• Support FAIR
• Random page
• Help

FAIR Website

• FAIR
• Topical Guide
• Support FAIR

Search

 

Toolbox

• What links here
• Related changes
• Upload file
• Special pages
• Printable version
• Permanent link

• This page was last modified 11:42, 28 May 2007.
• This page has been accessed 2,348 times.
• Privacy policy
• About FairWiki.org
• Disclaimers

[restornu]

Stop twisting our words to fit you senario!

You want to believe in “3 in one oil” fine I know different and was taught by the Holy Ghost not some traditioin of men!

This senarios of your is all wet!

Please stop trying to tell the LDS what they believe because you are unable to grasp!

You got your 3 in one oil I have the Godhead.

What you have don’t interest me, and if you have something good what I have should not interest you, also the Lord said, this is His business not yours to judge another.

[Reno232]

Galatians 5:22-23 “22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law”.

I’ve told you before MHG, I won’t play in the sandbox w/ you. I have endeavored to have reasoned discussions w/ a few on this thread. I will let those who have been reading along & participating, to judge the fruits of the spirit as described above in Galatians as they may pertain to me & then invite all to judge the fruits of the spirit as they may pertain to your post.

The main theme of most of my posts is to pray to the Father in the name of the Son for answers, & by power of the Holy Ghost, those answers will come. If you feel that’s demonic, or that my questions ilicit evil spirits, sobeit. let all judge as they may.

Matt.7:20 “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them”.

Regardless of my disagreements w/ you, I harbor no ill wishes towards you, in fact as my brother, I wish you the very best. But I’m no longer disposed to play in the sandbox, even w/ my brother.

[GLDNGUN]

Perhaps you would like to answer my post 309 re: the trinity. Perhaps you can reconcile your belief in one God w/ the scriptures in John that I cite in post 309.

First of all, I don't think God is going to send anyone to hell for not completely understanding the Trinity. To me, anyway, it's not a big deal if someone, as some Christians no doubt do, imagine God the Father with a body and Jesus Christ, His Son, with a different physical body. The problem is when Mormon doctrine then jumps off the cliff with drastic leaps of logic, like God once being a man and men becoming gods. This is completely against the whole of the Bible, as is the concept of more than 1 God.

It's rather amusing that you state "your belief in one God..." as if that is something that Christians believe for no good reason. For every verse you can find to twist to suit your purposes of supporting LDS doctrine that there are millions of Gods, I can show you 10 that state there is ONE GOD. Period.

Wouldn't it be cool if there was a prophet on the earth as in days of old to clear up these kinds of issues? To set the record straight.

And let me guess...Joseph Smith was that "prophet", right? Yes, he really cleared up the question of the Trinity and nature of God, didn't he? I mean the Book of Mormon contains "the fulness of the gospel", right? Surely, it MUST explain how wrong the idea of the Trinity is, and that God the Father and Jesus are 2 distinct physical beings, right?

OOPS! Your Book of Mormon says NO SUCH THING! Have you even read the Book of Mormon? I don't see how you could be confused about the trinity IF you have read the Book of Mormon and IF you actually believe it contains "the fulness of the gospel".

Let's start with 2 Nephi 2:13-14

"And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon."

WHO, according to the Book of Mormon created the universe?Only one God is mentioned.

2 Nephi 9:20

"O how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it."

Hmmmm...according to this passage, God knows everything; He is omniscient. No god in a physical body can know everything.

Let's examine 2 Nephi 10:7

"But, behold, thus saith the Lord God: When the day cometh that they shall believe in me, that I am Christ, then have I covenanted with their fathers that they shall be restored in the flesh, upon the earth, unto the lands of their inheritance."

Here we learn that Christ is God. Eventually everyone will be restored to the flesh on this planet, not each on a planet of his own.

Go to 2 Nephi 11:6-7

"And my soul delighteth in proving unto my people that save Christ should come all men must perish. For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time."

This passage again demonstrates that Christ is God. Not "a god". Not just "one in purpose". God. Period.

Examine 2 Nephi 19:6

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

This passage is describing God the Son, yet it says that He shall be called The Everlasting Father! Here is yet another contradiction of standard Mormon "insider doctrine", because it maintains that the Son and the Father are two separate beings with human bodies. Here we learn that They are one and the same Being.

It is quite clear that the Book of Mormon supports orthodox Christianity much better than it does current Mormon doctrine!

Turn to 2 Nephi 26:12

"And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God;"

Yet again, another passage that indicates that Jesus is God, and that He is eternal.

Now look at Mosiah 3:8

"And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary."

Here we learn once more that Jesus created the universe, and is the Father.

Let's examine Mosiah 15:1-5

"And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son--The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and the Son--And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people."

While this passage is somewhat confusing and perhaps even nonsensical, it does clearly state that the Father and Son are one God. It clearly says that the Father is spirit and the Son is flesh. And please don't put out the pitiful response "well, every body has a spirit". The BoM ONLY states that the Father is a spirit and NOWHERE says he has a physical body, unless it's identifying God the Father as Jesus Christ.

For example, Alma 18:26-30

"And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit? And he said, Yea. And Ammon said: This is God. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in the heaven and in the earth? And he said: Yea, I believe that he created all things which are in the earth; but I do not know the heavens. And Ammon said unto him: The heavens is a place where God dwells and all his holy angels."

Nothing much I can add to that.

Consider now Moroni 8:18

"For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity."

So, from the Book of Mormon we can glean its teaching on the nature of God: God existed from all eternity UNCHANGED, and will exist to all eternity, UNCHANGED. He did not grow up on some planet as a mortal man created by some other "god". GOD has always existed as GOD and always will. Period.

Let's consider 3 Nephi 11:22-27, and verse 36

"And again the Lord called others, and said unto them likewise; and he gave unto them power to baptize. And he said unto them: On this wise shall ye baptize; and there shall be no disputations among you. Verily I say unto you, that whoso repenteth of his sins through your words and desireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise shall ye baptize them--Behold, ye shall go down and stand in the water, and in my name shall ye baptize them. And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying: Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. And then shall ye immerse them in the water, and come forth again out of the water. And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one...And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one."

A clear statement of the Christian Trinity. The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one!

And then there's 2 Nephi 31:21

"And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen."

There it is again: the Christian Trinity, consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is one God. Not three gods, not three of many millions of gods, but ONE GOD and only ONE GOD.

Feel free to study up on the LDS "Lectures of Faith" that were published in the D&C until 1921. Without vote or notice they were yanked out. Why? Because, as I pointed out on another post THEY WERE IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION OF MORMON DOCTRINE IN REGARDS TO THE NATURE OF GOD. They taught that God is SPIRT and the Jesus is FLESH, and that the Holy Ghost was the mind. Again, spare me the "well, God HAS has a spirit, so that was true" argument. It says SPIRIT, period, and NOTHING about a body. Additionally, if those scriptures didn't contradict with the doctrine later adopted by the LDS church, there would have been no reason to remove them. By their very removal the LDS Church has admitted that "there's a problem" there.

The Lord never said prophets were no longer needed nor that we would never have one to lead us again.

Funny you should say such a thing. Actually the Bible DOES say prophets are no longer needed. Simply read the first 2 verses of Hebrews. It states that BEFORE Christ, God did send prophets but that Jesus replaced that system. We now have direct access to God through Christ.

All these different Christian Churches w/ all their different & competing doctrines.

As if all "Mormons" don't have "different and competing doctrines". There have been over 100 Mormon splinter groups in the brief time since Joe Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. Smith said he would be succeeded by his son...and he was. Backed by Emma Smith, Joseph Smith's first wife, he became the head of the RLDS Church, now the Community of Christ Church. They actually follow that Book of Mormon for what it's worth. They reject plurality of wives, plurality of gods, and other LDS doctrines not found in the BoM and most often contradicted by the BoM. Then we have the FLDS groups, practicing polygamy in Utah by tens of thousands TODAY. They also believe THEY are the restored church and the SLC LDS Church is apostate.

So much for that "latter day prophet" clearing up all that "confusion". Good grief.

[GLDNGUN]

Well, if you want the entire FAIR article

Obviously, I've been to the page and read it. Why would I need you to re-copy and paste it?! LOL

[restornu]

Why would I need you to re-copy and paste it?! LOL

Could it be you are not the only one who reads these post!

[restornu]

Excuse me Reno for steping in.

No god in a physical body can know everything

It will be impossible for you to under The Church or the LDS
when you keep using your template to understand!

An excellent talk on-

Jesus Christ as Father in the Book of Mormon
http://www.byub.org/sperry/real/skinner03.ram