[Starman]

What do the LDS's mean when they say that the biblical God was once a man who was exalted and given his own universe? According to them--who gave the biblical God that universe and who exhaltwed him. Another god?

[magprob]

That God the Father was the first man, Adam, and the husband of Mary. He was begotten on a previous heavenly world by his Father. The God of Mormonism was once a helpless, burping baby-born to Mormon parents who brought him up to "live worthy of the Gospels" and to obey all the mandates that Mormon Gospel proposes. At the age of eight, the child God supossedly had to undergo baptism by immersion for the remission of His sins, imposition of hands for the reception of the Holy Ghost and confirmation of His church mambership. All of this supposedly placed Him in the Kingdom of His God. By twelve, He was ordained as a deacon and later, allowed to learn Mormon priesthood secrets that are really a big secret because the gentiles can't handle it!
Also, that Jesus and Lucifer were blood brothers. Satan could have been the Savior if his plan of salvation had surpassed that of Jesus.

[Starman]

That God the Father was the first man, Adam, and the husband of Mary. He was begotten on a previous heavenly world by his Father. The God of Mormonism was once a helpless, burping baby-born to Mormon parents who brought him up to "live worthy of the Gospels" and to obey all the mandates that Mormon Gospel proposes. At the age of eight, the child God supossedly had to undergo baptism by immersion for the remission of His sins, imposition of hands for the reception of the Holy Ghost and confirmation of His church mambership. All of this supposedly placed Him in the Kingdom of His God. By twelve, He was ordained as a deacon and later, allowed to learn Mormon priesthood secrets that are really a big secret because the gentiles can't handle it!
Also, that Jesus and Lucifer were blood brothers. Satan could have been the Savior if his plan of salvation had surpassed that of Jesus.

God was Adam? Adam was the husband of Mary? Do they mean Mary the mother of Jesus? According to Genesis Adam died before he reached the age of 1000 and the only wife mentioned is Eve. Is this an idea they derrived from John Smith?

The two LDS's who are currently visiting me say they accept the Bible account.
But I really don't see how Adam being God can be reconciled with Genesis.
Do they reject the Genesis account?

Also, of all these supposed worlds, universes and Gods, whom do they believe is the original?

Thanks for your response.

[Fr_Chuck]

I would ask that if you are quoting can you provide book and chapter of the Book of Mormon this is coming out of ( or bible )

I read similar things on the anti mormom sites as teachings or writings of church leaders, but could not find a direct reference to the BOM or bible

Were you a previouw LDS magprob ( I will delete this if you were not but I thought I remember you saying you were in some old post, of course I get confused.

[magprob]

You will have to buy some books. The Mormons always tell new converts that they follow the bibles account. If that is so, then why the book of Mormon?
Here are my sources:
Joseph Smith, Pearl of Great Price, Writings of Joseph Smith, 2:19
Orson Pratt, The Seer, pg 132
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol 7, pg. 333
Pratt, The Seer, pg. 23
James Talmage, Jesus the Christ, pg. 39

And no, I have never been a Mormon and never will be. I stayed in Salt Lake City for a while, while my sweetie took some classes. I found it to be a very bizarre place so I began to study the LDS. I would sit on a hill side in the early morning hours on Sunday, in different locations around SLC, and watch different polygamous families pile into their Suburbans (Mormon Assault Vehicles) or (Polygarigs) and go to church. I was going to do an expose but I found it to be... shall I say... unhealthy. I decided to leave it alone. Most LDS members do not practice it but many still do. I will get serious flack for what I have just written here but it is true. I prefer the truth to politically correct.

[Fr_Chuck]

Sorry magprob, I know we have a couple LDS here and I thing a reorginsed LDS and at least one or two past ( I know it is one of our regular and thouth it was you. I have a lot of their books and writings, I always get a kick, the missionary guys, I read alotof their books in a comparative religion class ( read the quran also) but it was been a while,

Not saying anything you were saying was not true, but it can help others reading this to know more where to find the material,

Thanks for the research, Mormon assault vechiles, you behave.I may have to steal that one,

But I will say this on polygamy, I couild never find anything from a religious view point that would be against it, except for church leaders.
Don't know why anyone would want to, often one seems like one to many.

[Lacey5765]

Thanks for the defense Fr-Chuck. magprob, you have some misinformation. Maybe this can help from LDS.org As even a cursory glance at early Christian thought reveals, the idea that man might become as God—known in Greek as theosis or theopoiesis—may be found virtually everywhere, from the New Testament through the writings of the first four centuries. Church members take seriously such passages as Psalm 82:6 [Ps. 82:6], John 10:33–36, and Philippians 2:5–6 [Philip. 2:5–6], in which a plurality of gods and the idea of becoming like God are mentioned.

The notion of theosis is characteristic of church fathers Irenaeus (second century a.d.), Clement of Alexandria (third century a.d.), and Athanasius (fourth century a.d.). Indeed, so pervasive was the doctrine in the fourth century that Athanasius's archenemies, the Arians, also held the belief 3 and the Origenist monks at Jerusalem heatedly debated “whether all men would finally become like Christ or whether Christ was really a different creature.” 4

According to an ancient formula, “God became man that man might become God.” Early Christians “were invited to 'study' to become gods” (note the plural). 5

Though the idea of human deification waned in the Western church in the Middle Ages, it remained very much alive in the Eastern Orthodox faith, which includes such Christian sects today as the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox churches. 6 Jaroslav Pelikan notes, “The chief idea of St. Maximus, as of all Eastern theology, [was] the idea of deification.” 7

Is the subject of deification truly a closed question? After all, echoes of man becoming like God are still found in the work of later and modern writers in the West. For instance, C. S. Lewis's writings are full of the language of human deification. 8 Even Martin Luther was capable of speaking of the “deification of human nature,” although in what sense it is not clear. 9

Related to the claim that Latter-day Saints are not Christians because of their belief in deification is the assertion that if they hold to some kind of belief in deification then it must be that Church members do not view Jesus as uniquely divine. Such an assertion is totally erroneous. The phrase “Only Begotten Son” occurs with its variants at least ten times in the Book of Mormon, fourteen times in the Doctrine and Covenants, and nineteen times in the Pearl of Great Price. Basic to Latter-day Saint theology is the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the Only Begotten Son of the Father in the flesh.

[magprob]

[QUOTE=Lacey5765]Thanks for the defense Fr-Chuck. magprob, you have some misinformation. Maybe this can help from LDS.org

No, this is Mormon doctrine. I didn't make it up. The Mormons did.

Joseph Smith, Pearl of Great Price, Writings of Joseph Smith, 2:19
Orson Pratt, The Seer, pg 132
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol 7, pg. 333
Pratt, The Seer, pg. 23
James Talmage, Jesus the Christ, pg. 39

[Auttajasi]

Magprob,
You are just wrong. Don't know what else to say about that. Find another place to vent your frustrations about Mormons. I have heard some weird things that Mormons 'supposedly' believe, but your's were all new to me.

The rhetoric and tone of your post denotes not only a disagreement, but a strong dislike of Mormons. As a request, please try to respect the personal beliefs of others. This is fundamental to being a good person. In turn, I will respect your obvious grudge against Mormons.

People are always going to dislike Mormons for the simple fact that we are different and our beliefs challenge existing beliefs. Why is it that people who strongly disagree with Mormons tend to be hateful or violent towards us? It's interesting that Mormons disagree with other Christians just as much, but you don't hear of us printing anti-"other Christian faith" literature, or chasing Mormons out of neighborhoods with knives and baseball bats (yes, I served my 2-year mission). Just a curious observation. Why do we ignore the extensive common ground that Mormons have with other Christians, and just point out the differences? Treating ALL people with respect regardless of our differences is a fundamental belief of the Mormon Church. Something we learned from Jesus.

Now back to the post.
Not that I can add anything to Lacey's very well researched post.
Is it so hard to believe that there is more to this universe than just us? Those who believe, spend their entire lives trying to obey God's commandments. We continually fail, but then the grace of Jesus Christ picks us back up. Do we do this just to quit when we pass from our mortal life? No. I believe it continues. So in theory, if we are constantly trying to be like God, doesn't it make sense that some day we will? To me it does. It makes perfect sense.
To echo Lacey, we still hold Jesus Christ as our Savior and the Only Begotten Son.

[Starman]

Magprob,
....

Now back to the post

Is it so hard to believe that there is more to this universe than just us? Those who believe, spend their entire lives trying to obey God's commandments. We continually fail, but then the grace of Jesus Christ picks us back up. Do we do this just to quit when we pass from our mortal life? No. I believe it continues. So in theory, if we are constantly trying to be like God, doesn't it make sense that some day we will? To me it does. It makes perfect sense. To echo Lacey, we still hold Jesus Christ as our Savior and the Only Begotten Son.

I don't believe all the things you say I believe about the LDS. I am aware that they place their faith in Jesus' sacrifice for forgiveness of sin as I am aware that they believe him to be God's Only Begotten Son. I also am aware that they expect to become like God.

My quandary is in reference to the belief that God was once a human being before he became God. What biblical basis do the LDS have to reach such a conclusion?

[Auttajasi]

I don't believe all the things you say I believe about the LDS. I am aware that they place their faith in Jesus' sacrifice for forgiveness of sin as I am aware that they believe him to be God's Only Begotten Son. I also am aware that they expect to become like God.

My quandary is in reference to the belief that God was once a human being before he became God. What biblical basis do the LDS have to reach such a conclusion?

I haven't said anything about what YOU believe about the LDS faith. I have only been quoting my own faith.
Lacey's post pretty much summed it up.

Church members take seriously such passages as Psalm 82:6 [Ps. 82:6], John 10:33–36, and Philippians 2:5–6 [Philip. 2:5–6], in which a plurality of gods and the idea of becoming like God are mentioned.

If we take from these passages that there is a plurality of Gods and that we can become like our Father, then there has to be a way to get there. This process starts with being spiritually born, as stated in the Bible, and then receiving our bodies.
This example may help you understand what the LDS believe. Take a father here on earth. He wants to have kids. When he has kids, they are his kids born in his likeness. They obviously aren't just like him because they have much development to go through first. They obviously can't do what he can, but someday they will be able to. He too was once a child looking to become like HIS father.

This process has occurred for thousands of years and will continue for many more.

After years of development and experience, they mature into adulthood and now desire to have their own kids. Their father is now older and more wise and more mature. They have kids which are born in their own likeness who have the potential to become like their parents. I think you get my point.

Who knows how many times the word "Father" appears in the Bible when referencing God? The LDS take this literally. He is our father. If you are asking if the Bible specifically references the fact that God was once human, no, I don't think it 'specifically says it, nor do I think the Book of Mormon specifically says it, but just like in the Bible, the scriptures alludes to it. We have other scripture which we consider to be the word of God. We also believe that God has called a prophet and 12 apostles on the earth today, just like he has done before. All of this 'supplements' the truths that we read from the bible. I'm not trying to convince you that this stuff is try. I'm just trying to help you understand, in what context the LDS believe what we do. Hope this helps.

The controversy may be around the use of the word 'Father' in the Bible. I know of really only one definition of the word 'father,' but I could be wrong; there may be another one that is intended for the use of 'Father' in the Bible.

[magprob]

Our future God had his wives and children sealed to him in the temple. I see that Auttajasi has a degree in Theology and specializes in the LDS doctrine so could you tell us what happens in the temple sealing process and what is the out come?
As we all know, the leaders of the church are considered prophets , Gorden B. Hinkley as well as Brigham Young, so they are always changing old doctrine to fit with today's mindset. Also, as we know, or should know, GODs word never changes.

Auttajasi, admit it, you really haven't studied the Mormon religion in depth. You are just a crusader.

[Auttajasi]

magprob,

The fact that you can't have a conversation without trying to insult someone is a reflection of your intelligence and your faith. To the lay person reading this post, they are probably thinking that I ran over your dog or something and you are retaliating. Not sure if I offended you in a former life or something.

You continue to attack the LDS religion and those that believe in it. I am in the same position you are in and I could easily attack you for NOT believing in LDS doctrine, but I have done no such thing, nor will I ever.

I do not claim a special degree in my faith, nor is it required to get into heaven, or try to answer someone's question about LDS doctrine for that matter.
If this is the way that a "Senior member" of this forum acts, I may have to reconsider my participation in this website. One sour apple ruins the bushel.

I love a good healthy argument, but when one party is spouting unsubstantiated rhetoric and resorting to false assumptions and name calling, it nullifies any conversation that we have had or could have had. Feel free to contact me if you want to have a real discussion about spirituality. I don't get offended nor do I hold grudges.
See you,

[magprob]

magprob,

The fact that you can't have a conversation without trying to insult someone is a reflection of your intelligence and your faith. To the lay person reading this post, they are probably thinking that I ran over your dog or something and you are retaliating. Not sure if I offended you in a former life or something.

You continue to attack the LDS religion and those that believe in it. I am in the same position you are in and I could easily attack you for NOT believing in LDS doctrine, but I have done no such thing, nor will I ever.

I do not claim a special degree in my faith, nor is it required to get into heaven, or try to answer someone's question about LDS doctrine for that matter.
If this is the way that a "Senior member" of this forum acts, I may have to reconsider my participation in this website. One sour apple ruins the bushel.

I love a good healthy argument, but when one party is spouting unsubstantiated rhetoric and resorting to false assumptions and name calling, it nullifies any conversation that we have had or could have had. Feel free to contact me if you want to have a real discussion about spirituality. I don't get offended nor do I hold grudges.
See ya,

Not at all. You think I am attacking the Mormons when I simply posted the sources of my post. You called me a liar but you will never read the sources whence I got the correct information. You just started balbbering about some completely unrelated religions that have no bearing on this topic.
I was not a part of your past life and I will be sure to avoid you in the next.

[Lacey5765]

Ok, so do you believe that God would give any commandments that we can not achieve? WOuld a loving Father set us up to fail? Mathew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Sure we may not reach perfection in this life but why would we strive for perfection if it is not attainable? It sounds Magprob that you have studied some LDS doctrine and thus must know that we believe in continued revelation today. Not a change in GOd's word but additional "word". GOd's word was not changed by the New Testament, just further understanding. The Book of MOrmon doesn't change God's original word either. Just further knowledge and additional understanding. We know that through the many translations of the Bible some meanings have been changed and even all of us on this post can read the same scripture and have many different interpretations. We LDS just believe that God has revealed his true meaning of the scriptures through additional scriptures not taking anything away from the Old and New Testament.

[magprob]

Ok, so do you believe that God would give any commandments that we can not achieve? WOuld a loving Father set us up to fail? Mathew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Sure we may not reach perfection in this life but why would we strive for perfection if it is not attainable? It sounds Magprob that you have studied some LDS doctrine and thus must know that we believe in continued revelation today. Not a change in GOd's word but additional "word". GOd's word was not changed by the New Testament, just further understanding. The Book of MOrmon doesn't change God's original word either. just further knowledge and additional understanding. We know that thru the many translations of the Bible some meanings have been changed and even all of us on this post can read the same scripture and have many different interpretations. We LDS just believe that God has revealed his true meaning of the scriptures through additional scriptures not taking anything away from the Old and New Testament.

Continued Revelation? Let me show you something real quick. REV. 18 "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, GOD will add to him the plagues described in this book. REV.19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, GOD will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. Holy Bible, New International Version.

Hey, if you want to believe Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and trust them with your eternal salvation, you just go right ahead. Personally, I do not feel Gordon B. Hinkley is a prophet of GOD. I'm sure he really wants the best for you but, if he spoke the truth from his heart of hearts, I'm afraid you would be disappointed. Until GOD comes back and changes those words Himself, the prophecy business is dead, except for the Mormon church that is. But like I said, may GOD really bless you.

[Auttajasi]

Continued Revelation? Let me show you something real quick. REV. 18 "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, GOD will add to him the plagues described in this book. REV.19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, GOD will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. Holy Bible, New International Version.

The word 'bible' comes from the greek word "biblios" which means books or scrolls. 'ta biblia' means 'the books' or 'library.'

There wasn't a Book or Bible when Revelations was written.
Rev 22: 18-19 refers specifically to The Book of Revelations, which was where the prophecy and plagues were described.
The Bible was compiled (about 150 AD) after all but one of the Apostles had been savagely murdered.
Additionally, the Old Testament was even compiled after the New Testament, but we don't consider this adding to the book. The Bible is a library of books, therefore adding to or taking away from the Book of Revelations would merit the plagues.

[magprob]

That is really weak considering the fact that the books compiled were in fact the inspired word of GOD. Gordon B. Hinkleys word is not the inspired word of GOD no more than the Pope can add to or take away from the one true Bible.

[Auttajasi]

That is really weak considering the fact that the books compiled were in fact the inspired word of GOD.

No it's not weak. It's fact. I gathered the information from several different Catholic oriented sites. What I also found in my internet travels, is that there were several other Gospels like The Epistle of Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas, that were initially considered inspired works, but were rejected when the Bible was initially compiled. My point is that I fail to believe that every inspired word of God is in fact in the Bible. I can't believe that a loving God would speak to his children so little over the course of thousands of years. Can a person sit down, read 4 pages a day, and read the entire word of God in a year? I hope not.

Quote from catholic.com about inspiration:

"No internal evidence could prove inspiration, because inspiration is essentially a supernatural fact. It is objective, not subjective. It is simply that God said this thing in this way."
As hard as you try, you are not going to be able to disprove that the head of the LDS church is inspired. Just as no one is going to disprove that the Pope is inspired.

I also believe other people have been inspired over the years. I believe that Martin Luther was inspired, but I am not Lutheran. I also believe that Beethoven, Mozart, Liszt, and Chopin etc. were inspired. I also believe our founding fathers (USA) were inspired to do what they did. You may disagree.

We may have our opinions and convictions, but spirituality is not an exact science. It is one part objective and many parts subjective. Hence, why there are so many churches out there most of which believe the others are wrong, and all of which (Christian) hold the Bible to be the word of God.

[NeedKarma]

That why I believe that the Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster is right for me. The teachings are beautiful.