Free Republic

Are you familiar with the Lorenzo Snow couplet?

Of course I am. In fact, it is found in the first paragraph at the link I provided earlier (Post #36). For the benefit of those who do not know what we are talking about, here is what Lorenzo Snow said:

As man now is, God once was;
As God now is, man may be.

So if I ask to look like Jennifer Aniston, I'm in, eh? That's a much less ambitious plea than to ask to be a god.

It seems your argument is with the Bible, not with me.

Alas, you are misinformed about LDS teachings.

I would suggest that you study what we actually say about our doctrines, and not rely on what others may say about us.

On the subject of deification, you might to start with the summary by Millet and Reynolds, Do Latter-day Saints believe that men and women can become gods? It states in part,

This doctrine is generally referred to as deification, and the LDS expression of this doctrine is often misrepresented and misunderstood. Latter-day Saints do not believe that human beings will ever be independent of God, or that they will ever cease to be subordinate to God. They believe that to become as God means to overcome the world through the atonement of Jesus Christ (see 1 John 5:4—5; Revelation 2:7, 11). Thus the faithful become heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ and will inherit all things just as Christ inherits all things (see Romans 8:17; Galatians 4:7; 1 Corinthians 3:21—23; Revelation 21:7). They are received into the "church of the firstborn," meaning they inherit as though they were the firstborn (see Hebrews 12:23). There are no limitations on these scriptural declarations; those who become as God shall inherit all things. In that glorified state they will resemble our Savior; they will receive his glory and be one with him and with the Father (see 1 John 3:2; 1 Corinthians 15:49; 2 Corinthians 3:18; John 17:21—23; Philippians 3:21).

Joseph Smith's "stench of sin" was to think he's better than Jesus.

If so, he will answer to God for his pride.

On the other hand, perhaps Joseph Smith was simply fulfilling the promise that Jesus made to His disciples:

11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.

12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. (John 14:11-14)

The stench of sin is to think you'll become a god someday.

Not so. The idea of becoming a god (deification or theosis) has a long and respectable history in Christian thought. Consider what St. Augustine (no Mormon he) wrote on the subject:

It is evident then, that He has called men gods, that are deified of His Grace, not born of His Substance. For He does justify, who is just through His own self, and not of another; and He does deify who is God through Himself, not by the partaking of another. But He that justifies does Himself deify, in that by justifying He does make sons of God. For He has given them power to become the sons of God. ( John 1:12) If we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods: but this is the effect of Grace adopting, not of nature generating. Exposition on Psalm 50 (2)

Many other early Christians (none of whom could be considered Mormons) expressed similar ideas. St. Athanasius expressed it concisely:

For the Son of God became man so that we might become God. ( Catechism: 460)

I wold not argue that Augustine, Athanasius, and the other early Christians who wrote about deification understood it exactly as Latter-day Saints do. But I would argue that there is nothing at all sinful to think that one might become a god someday.

Indeed, the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Thought goes so far as to state that deification is "the goal of every Christian":

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. (Psalms 82: (81) .6; 2 Peter 1:4), and it is essentially the teaching both of St. Paul, though he tends to use the language of filial adoption (Romans 8:9-17, Galatians 4:5-7) and the fourth gospel (John 17:21-23).

A good summary of deification from the LDS perspective can be found HERE.

Good article, PD. Thanks for posting it.

Without critically reviewing Walker, Turley & Leonard, I'm sure they've done a professional work on this book. The only thing the Mormon church probably told them from the jumpstart was to just not look very hard for any pre-massacre connections leading back to Brigham Young...or perhaps even develop a credible mopology [sic] on that.

Make up your mind. If the authors did "professional work" on the book, they would not have overlooked "connections" to Brigham Young. To do so would have been unprofessional.

Do you have any evidence to support your suggestion that the Mormon Church "probably" told the authors how to proceed?

Well, you can't expect an objective look from a corporation that has as much invested in the name of "Brigham Young."

You should look up the fallacy known as "poisoning the well."

I have a friend who’s kid is in classes at a state U with a similar “personality” type. The guy goes on rants, intimidates other students...and the University does nothing. If a complaint has to be lodged, it has to be lodged by the student he’s intimidating...and the student’s being intimidated (and the profs for that matter) are afraid of retribution by the guy should he “go off the deep end.” In fact the U warns them that if they lodge a complaint this guy will know who filed it. Sad but true, and the definition of harrassment at this particular state instutition only lists direct contact as harrassment...verbal diatribes cannot be counted.

That is the case at the state university where I teach. Some years ago, a student from Saudi Arabia was angry that he failed two courses, one of them mine. The student said that he wanted me and one of my colleagues killed. The department secretary was alarmed enough that she contacted the university administration.

The response from the upper administration was tepid. They were sure the student did not really mean what he had said; he was just upset. They promised to "do something" if he repeated his threats. That was it.

I went out and purchased a concealable handgun, which I carried with me until that student graduated and returned to Saudi Arabia.

I’m imagine you and the other LDS wish Resty would just shut up :-)

Shut up? No. I would never suggest such a thing.

However, if the anti-Mormon threads on Free Republic are "taking a toll" on her, it would be healthier for her not to respond to them.

That said, restornu strikes me a someone who is deeply devoted to Jesus Christ. Such devotion is what makes one a true Christian.

A witness from the Holy Ghost is priceless. It is understandable that restornu would get upset when something so precious to her is demeaned or discounted. I would simply advise her to remember what Jesus said in Matthew 7:6.

Allow me to revise and extend my remarks:

Thin-skinned Mormons probably should not respond to criticism, if they cannot do so without getting upset.

Don’t feel bad the stealth war on the LDS is now in the open!

War? You exaggerate. No blood has been spilt; no harm has been done to us or the Lord's work.

I frequently disagree with what is written about Mormons and Mormonism here. Rather than complain about being mistreated, it is better to set the record straight. I appreciate the opportunity that Free Republic offers us to respond to attacks on our faith.

Restornu, what anti-Mormons do and say about us is far less a concern to me than what some Mormons do and say in response. Thin-skinned Mormons probably should not read critical articles.

The First Presidency addressed the issue of tithing in a letter in 1970:

For your guidance in this matter, please be advised that we have uniformly replied that the simplest statement we know of is that statement of the Lord himself that the members of the Church should pay one-tenth of all their interest annually, which is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this. We feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly. (Quoted by Vicor L. Brown, Ensign, April 1974)

So far as I know, this is still the official word on tithing.

Note that no one, not even a bishop, is authorized to go beyond what the First Presidency has written. How members calculate their tithing is between them and the Lord; the bishop has no say in the matter.

As for the temple recommend interview, the question is whether one is a full tithe payer, not whether one attended tithing settlement. And every member is entitled to decide what it means to be a full tithe payer.

(You may be right that I do not follow my religion very well. Fortunately, God is both just and merciful; and by His grace I may be perfect in Christ. )

. . . Brigham Young had this to say on tithing "There has been so much inquiry it becomes irksome: the law is for a man to pay one-tenth. The Lord requires one-tenth of that which he has given me."

Yes, and I pay one-tenth (10%) of my net income. That is what the Lord has given me. (The rest He allows the government to take.)

Now, if someone wants to give 10% of his gross income, that is his business. The bishop is not supposed to question how any member calculates his or her tithing.

I have literally been told at tithing audit (ok I'll use your eupehmism, tithing settlement) . . .

The proper terminology is "tithing settlement," not "tithing audit." (Have you been away from the LDS Church so long that you have forgotten?)

The difference between a settlement and an audit is no mere euphemism. Audits are mandatory. An tithing audit would be a careful, methodical examination of one's financial records to verify compliance.

Tithing settlement is entirely voluntary. If a member chooses to participate, he is not asked to show the bishop anything. The member declares whether he considers himself a full tithe payer; the bishop is not to question such a declaration.

I will publicly take issue with your assertion that you didn't even spend 30 hours a week on Bishopric duties.

A bishop who personally does all of the things you listed is doing it wrong. Perhaps you have forgotten, but the bishop is supposed to call others to do much of the work.

Sir, I question your ability to add, honesty, or both. Of course I know there must be slackers in the LDS Bishoprics, but I can tell you of a certainty that 30-50 hours a week on top of full time work, college (in my case), and family is to be expected.

I am not deficient in mathematics, and I try to tell the truth; so perhaps I was one of the slackers. Or perhaps you are not as knowledgeable as you claim about the workings of the LDS church.

Until someone leads me to such passages in the Book of Mormon, I guess I'll remain shocked by the hatred some of my fellow FReepers show for this group.

Thanks for your kind remarks about Mormons. Off the top of my head, I can think of one situation in the Book of Mormon in which the Lord commanded the prophet Nephi to slay a man. See 1 Nephi 4:7-18. Nephi did so by cutting off the man's head with his own sword.

In contrast, the Book of Mormon also gives an account of people who refused to take up arms, instead allowing themselves to be killed for their faith (See Alma 24.)

However, both of those are extreme and unusual cases. More generally, the Book of Mormon supports the right of self-defense. Indeed, it speaks of self-defense as a duty:

45 Nevertheless, the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for monarchy nor power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church.

46 And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.

47 And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion. (Alma 43:45-47)

I take these words to heart. I believe in turning the other cheek, in not responding in kind to insults. However, I am no pacifist. I believe every person has the right to defend himself and his family and friends against those who would harm them.

If you have not been a member, you simply cannot comprehend the severity of the burden of mormonism. 30-50 HOURS A WEEK of free labor, 10% (of gross) tithe with a year end tihing audit, a day's pay once a month for fast offering, and GUILT, GUILT, GUILT mixed in with never ending deceit and false doctrine.

Even as bishop, I never devoted as much as 30 hours a week to church work. (Someone who spends that much time is probably doing it wrong.)

I tithe 10% on my net (not gross) income. I have never conducted or been subjected to a "tithing audit." (Do you mean "tithing settlement"?)

Fast offerings are voluntary contributions to help the poor. The amount given is entirely up to the giver; the cost of two meals per month is suggested. I try to give more, but no one has ever questioned or even commented on my fast offering.

As for guilt—well, I feel guilty when I offend others. In my opinion, guilt is entirely appropriate in such cases. Fortunately, the Atonement of Jesus Christ provides the means whereby I may repent of my sins.

"Modern Mohammedanism has its Mecca at Salt Lake... Clearly the Koran was Joseph Smith's model, so closely followed as to exclude even the poor pretension of originality in his foul 'revelations.' " (The Women of Mormonism, Frances E. Willard, 1882, Introduction, p. xvi)

Utter nonsense.

Mecca is the holiest city of Islam, so holy that non-Muslims are forbidden by law from entering the city. One of the five pillars of Islam is the Hajj, the obligatory pilgrimage to Mecca: every Muslim who is able to afford it is expected to make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in his or her life.

In contrast, Salt Lake City is not considered holy by Mormons, nor are non-Mormons forbidden to enter the city. (In fact, the majority of the city's residents are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.) Pilgrimages are not a practice or requirement of our religion at all; hence, Mormons are not expected to undertake pilgrimages to Salt Lake City.

In my view, Salt Lake City functions more like Rome than like Mecca.

As for the allegation that the Koran was Joseph Smith's model, I suspect that the writer knew little of either the Book of Mormon or the Koran.

By attending a Christmas Eve service at church on Friday, December 24 or a Christmas Day service at church on Saturday, December 25?

No, we celebrate Christmas differently. In my family, we gather together on Christmas Eve to sing Christmas carols and to read the Biblical accounts of the birth of Jesus.

My wife directs a neighborhood children's choir. All month, they have been singing traditional carols at various functions around the city.

In my ward, we sing Christmas carols in every Sunday meeting during the month of December. The talks in the Sunday meetings have focussed on Jesus Christ and especially His birth.

And of course, the First Presidency broadcasts its annual Christmas Devotional. The talk at the head of this thread is from this year's devotional. The entire devotional, including performances by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, is available HERE.

Again I wish you a merry Christmas and a prosperous new year!

Happy Festivs or Smith BD, which ever.

Do you mean Festivus? I don't know any Mormons who celebrate that particular non-holiday.

I don't know any who celebrate Joseph Smith's birthday either. (In fact, until you mentioned it, I had forgotten that today is Joseph Smith's birthday.)

But most of us do celebrate Christmas. So, allow me to wish you a merry Christmas and a prosperous new year.

lol is Christmas on christs birthday?

Does it matter?

So, are you claiming that the golden plates were/are as real as Jesus Christ?

Jesu Christ and the plates are real, yes. However, Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God; the plates are inanimate objects on which was engraved a record of God's dealing with human beings.

Thanks for clearing that up. The continual attempt by mormonism to downgrade Christ to fit the mormon template is really obvious in some posts here.

Now you are getting silly. To say that A is as real as B is not to "downgrade" either A or B.