Does the LDS church teach that men can evolve into a God?

Bonnie

Super Member
Not that I'm aware of. Are you aware of Jesus killing anyone?
The Mormon Jesus caused mass destruction and death in the Book of Mormon:


It's in 3 Nephi, chapter nine. Jesus destroyed whole cities here. Yet, the Jesus of the bible said that He came to save people, not to destroy them.

Tell me did God never kill anyone in the OT? Or cause the death of anyone? Remember this:

Deuteronomy 32:39
King James Version

39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

So, is the HS God? Or not?
 

Bonnie

Super Member
What's your point? I was using the ESV. Supposedly, they are the most accurate, or so I've been told.
It is "kingdom, priests to His God and Father...."

So, it is a distinction without any difference, really. And Peter does say we are a "royal priesthood."

So, no need for the false "priesthoods" of Mormonism which have no authority over believers at all. None.
 

organgrinder

Super Member
That is not what sitting on his throne means. Rev 3:21 (ESV) "The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne."

How many servants in all of history do you know who share the throne with the king? Any? I believe your understanding of this passage is inaccurate. It is as kings, joint-kings. He explicitly states that those who he grants this to will sit WITH as HE sits with his Father on His throne. It doesn't get any more explicit than that and yet, you will still insist that it's not what is says.
Here is how Strong's defines "sits". Notice it is not literal. Try to think about it in context of what other scriptures say instead of what your church wants you to believe about becoming gods.



NT:2523
kathizo (kath-id'-zo); another (active) form for NT:2516; to seat down, i.e. set (figuratively, appoint); intransitively, to sit (down); figuratively, to settle (hover, dwell):


KJV - continue, set, sit (down), tarry.


(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
 

Bonnie

Super Member
snip for more space
But there are literally THOUSANDS of ancient Greek NT manuscript copies, whole or in part--more than any other ancient document--that can be examined by scholars, so they CAN piece together what the original autographs most likely had in them. God said His word would never die and it has not. He has enabled us to preserve it.

4him gave me permission to post the following. It is from my cyber scholar friend, Dr. Luginbill, who is an expert in Biblical Koine Greek and teaches it, and the Classics, which include the Bible. I once asked him about how to determine what the original autographs most likely had in them:

I would not say that the small number of places where there are textual disagreements are always insubstantial. Sometimes they are very important. But this is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater and assume that we can't essentially trust what we have. Any person of average intelligence comparing two or three or four reputable English versions can easily see that the meaning is essentially the same throughout the entire Bible. That could never happen if the text were completely "up in the air". It is not. You are absolutely correct that differences in translation are usually due to understanding the same text in a different way. Because one translator got it right and one got it slightly wrong (or both did) has nothing to do with the state of the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic text of the passage in question. As to those texts, they are in extremely good shape. Textual criticism is both a science and an art. The biblical version owes most everything to the Classics where Greek and Latin texts of authors from antiquity were rediscovered in manuscript form during the renaissance and afterwards but had numerous errors due to the difficulties of copying from ms. to ms. with complete accuracy. Depth of knowledge in the languages, the subject matter, and the methodology of ancient book production has meant that over the centuries our versions of ancient authors are, while not completely clean, in the 95% or greater range, even though in many cases there is a great paucity of evidence, especially in comparison to the Bible. For the New Testament, for example, there are thousands of mss. that date to this period of the late middle ages until the printing press ended the production of mss. -- and a great deal of evidence much older than that (e.g., Sinaiticus is probably late 3rd cent.). I am teaching Catullus this semester, and his entire corpus of poetry goes back to a single manuscript discovered in 1305 -- and that ms. is now lost. Nevertheless, through diligent scholarship his corpus has been repaired to such a fine degree there is probably less than one serious question per page of text. For the NT, there is an abundance of evidence -- all that is needed is the skill, experience . . . and knowledge to do it right. The last point is usually the critical one. Mis-translations and incorrect decisions on the text are mostly the result of not understanding well enough what Paul or Peter or John means (generally and in the specific context). Classicists have been able to correct the texts of ancient authors through deep understanding of the genres and languages and propensities of individual authors. More of that is needed in specific cases in the NT. But what we are discussing here is fine tuning of the sort that would be wasted on the average Christian anyway since in our lukewarm era of Laodicea few are really interested in in-depth Bible teaching in any case. But I digress.

As to "1,000's of changes", I hope it will be obvious from the above that this is ludicrous. The statement itself is nonsensical. Who did the changing? And from what did they change? The Bible was written book by book and the original autograph in each case was/is the Word of God in its perfect inspired form. All other ms. are copies and by now copies of copies of copies. But that does not mean that the copies are far removed from the original. In fact, they are even close than the 95% + mss. of the Classics. A lot closer. In my experience, we have enough evidence to reconstruct the correct reading of every passage in the Bible. Does that mean that all agree on the correct reading in those (relatively) small percentage of cases where there is an issue? Not at all. But that is not a change. That is a challenge: to Bible teachers/scholars to do the work and get it right; to Bible students to find someone who is doing the work and getting it right.

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

However, nearly 4000 changes were made to the BoM and most were not due to typesetting errors, either. The Tanners documented in minute detail all of the changes made. One of our churches had their book on it, that I saw, back in the late 80's, in the church library, though I did not know the significance of the book back then. So, even having one--supposedly--author of the BoM did NOT keep it from being very INcorrect, despite the claim by Smith that it was the most correct book on earth.
 
Last edited:

Bonnie

Super Member
Here is an interesting website that shows many of the errors, inconsistencies, and changes in the BoM:


Here is one part of this:

REFORMED EGYPTIAN

1. 1 Nephi 1:2 - The Book of Mormon is said to have been originally written in "the language of the Egyptians."
a. Does it not seem strange that Jews would use a foreign language to write a national history?!
b. Two reasons given within the Book of Mormon itself:
1) Mosiah 1:4 - Lehi had been taught in the language of the Egyptians and therefore he could read the engravings and teach them to his children.
a) Surely, though he may have known Egyptian, it was still a second language to him. He also knew Hebrew, which was he native tongue!
b) At best, Lehi is still using a second language which was foreign to his up-bringing.
2) Mormon 9:33 - The plates were not large enough to contain Hebrew engravings.
a) There is no indication that the number of available plates were restricted in any way.
b) There really is no way of ascertaining the accuracy of this statement made by Moroni.
2. Mormon 9:32-33 - Book of Mormon written in reformed Egyptian.
a. v. 33 - Admits imperfections within this record written in reformed Egyptian.
b. v. 33 - The use of Hebrew would have eliminated these imperfections.
c. So, in reality, they created the imperfections (are at least allowed their existence) by not using the Hebrew language (which was their native tongue).
d. v. 34 - The Lord knew about these imperfections!
e. Why would God allow such a thing to occur within an inspired record?!

Did God ever say that there would be imperfections in the inspired words He gave to His OT prophets and NT apostles?
 

Bonnie

Super Member
And here is an excerpt from the Tanners book on all the changes made in the BoM:

This study will show that there have been thousands of changes in the Book of Mormon and that Joseph Fielding Smith is the one who is not telling the truth. As to his statement that the man who printed the first edition was unfriendly and allowed errors to creep into the book, the famous Mormon Historian B. H. Roberts has already stated that the first edition of the Book of Mormon was "singularly free from typographical errors" and that the printer could not be blamed for the many mistakes that are found in the Book of Mormon:

"That errors of grammar and faults in dictation do exist in the Book of Mormon (and more especially and abundantly in the first edition) must be conceded; and what is more, while some of the errors may be referred to inefficient proof-reading, such as is to be expected in a country printing establishment, yet such is the nature of the errors in question, and so interwoven are they throughout the diction of the Book, that they may not be disposed of by saying they result from inefficient proof-reading or referring them to the mischievous disposition of the 'typos' or the unfriendliness of the publishing house. The errors are constitutional in their character; they are of the web and woof of the style, and not such errors as may be classed as typographical. Indeed, the first edition of the Book of Mormon is SINGULARLY FREE FROM TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS." (Defense of the Faith, by B. H. Roberts, pp. 280-281; reprinted in A New Witness For Christ in America, by Francis W. Kirkham, Vol. 1, pp. 200-201)

In a footnote on page 295 of the same book Mr. Roberts stated:

"But after due allowance is made for all these conditions, the errors are so numerous, and of such a constitutional nature, that they cannot be explained away by these unfavorable conditions under which the work was published."

John H. Gilbert, the man who helped to print the Book of Mormon, claimed that the Mormons did not want him to correct the grammatical errors which were in the manuscript:

"When the printer was ready to commence work, Harris was notified, and Hyrum Smith brought the first installment of manuscript ... On the second day — Harris and Smith being in the office — I called their attention to a grammatical error, and asked whether I should correct it? Harris consulted with Smith a short time, and turned to me and said: 'The Old Testament is ungrammatical, set it as it is written.' ... .

"Cowdery held and looked over the manuscript when most of the proofs were read. Martin Harris once or twice, and Hyrum Smith once, Grandin supposing these men could read their own writing as well, if not better, than any one else; and if there are any discrepancies between the Palmyra edition and the manuscript these men should be held responsible." (Memorandum, made by John H. Gilbert, Esq., September 8, 1892, Palmyra, N.Y., printed in Joseph Smith Begins His Work, Vol. 1, Introduction)

What Joseph Fielding Smith said about the changes is this:

"During the past week or two I have received a number of letters from different parts of the United States written by people, some of whom at least are a little concerned because they have been approached by enemies of the Church and enemies of the Book of Mormon, who have made the statement that there have been one or two or more thousand changes in the Book of Mormon since the first edition was published. Well, of course, there is no truth in that statement.

"It is true that when the Book of Mormon was printed the printer was a man who was unfriendly. The publication of the book was done under adverse circumstances, and there were a few errors, mostly typographical — conditions that arise in most any book that is being published — but there was not one thing in the Book of Mormon or in the second edition or any other edition since that in any way contradicts the first edition, and such changes as were made were made by the Prophet Joseph Smith because under those adverse conditions the Book of Mormon was published. But there was no change of doctrine.

"Now, these Sons of Belial who circulate these reports evidently know better. I will not use the word that is in my mind." (The Improvement Era, December, 1961, pp. 924-925)

JF Smith lied.


I have seen a little of the original writing in the BoM and in some places, the grammar was atrocious. Why would God dictate bad English grammar to Smith while he was looking at the rock in his hat?

And who translates by looking at a rock in one's hat, anyway, instead of looking at the actual writing of something in one language, to translate it into another language? Did the scholars who translated the OT and NT into English do so by looking into a hat with a rock in it?
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
But there are literally THOUSANDS of ancient Greek NT manuscript copies, whole or in part--more than any other ancient document--that can be examined by scholars, so they CAN piece together what the original autographs most likely had in them.
No they can't. You have hundreds of posts by me. What did I leave out of this post originally. Go ahead, piece it together. :rolleyes:

No one is able to produce what they don't have exactly as it was in the original. They can claim that they have, but who would know? When there's no original, there is no way to know. That's a fact.
God said His word would never die and it has not.
His word would never die, but that doesn't mean someone wouldn't erase it, change it or spill tomato juice on it by accident. His word never died, but it might not have made it into the Bible as he said it because finite men just make mistakes and evil men make mistakes on purpose. You all protest the church that gave you the Bible and you don't think they didn't make changes to support their beliefs?
 

organgrinder

Super Member
No they can't. You have hundreds of posts by me. What did I leave out of this post originally. Go ahead, piece it together. :rolleyes:

No one is able to produce what they don't have exactly as it was in the original. They can claim that they have, but who would know? When there's no original, there is no way to know. That's a fact.

His word would never die, but that doesn't mean someone wouldn't erase it, change it or spill tomato juice on it by accident. His word never died, but it might not have made it into the Bible as he said it because finite men just make mistakes and evil men make mistakes on purpose. You all protest the church that gave you the Bible and you don't think they didn't make changes to support their beliefs?
No.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
No they can't. You have hundreds of posts by me. What did I leave out of this post originally. Go ahead, piece it together. :rolleyes:

No one is able to produce what they don't have exactly as it was in the original. They can claim that they have, but who would know? When there's no original, there is no way to know. That's a fact.

<Chuckle>

So you would empty all the prisons of all the convicts?
The reason I ask, is because we have 1000x more evidence for the text of the Bible than we have for ANY convicted criminal.

Btw, you might as well through out all those writings of Augustine, Tertullian, Athanasius, Plato, Socrates, and all other ancient writings, because we have a thousand times more manuscripts of the Bible than we have for any of those writings, and the manuscripts of the Bible are FAR closer to the original writings than those of those other ancient authors.




His word would never die, but that doesn't mean someone wouldn't erase it, change it or spill tomato juice on it by accident. His word never died, but it might not have made it into the Bible as he said it because finite men just make mistakes and evil men make mistakes on purpose. You all protest the church that gave you the Bible and you don't think they didn't make changes to support their beliefs?
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
However, nearly 4000 changes were made to the BoM and most were not due to typesetting errors, either
I addressed this already. The second men got a hold of God's word, they started making changes to it. It's what men do.

Inspite of those changes, I believe it is still the most correct book. More correct that the D&C and more correct that the Book of Abraham and the reason for that is how it was translated. I wish we had the extant originals but we don't. Royal Skousen's work on the critical text publishing of the Book of Mormon has shown, to me at least, that the original text was far superior to what we have today. He is one who, I believe, who thought he could restore the original text from what we have today, but he admitted that that is not possible

Still, with all its corrections, it remains the most correct book of its kind.
 

organgrinder

Super Member
Correct, You can't. No one can. It's not possible. The same is true of the Bible. Without the originals, all anyone can do is guess.
No, I don't think they made changes. We can also go back to the earliest Latin Bibles and compare those translations to the Greek we have no problems. You are desperate here. Your assumptive argument doesn't fly.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
No, I don't think they made changes
I'm sure that's what you think, but you are wrong. We have proof that they made changes. If we have proof that they made changes, then what proof do you have that earlier copyists didn't make changes? None. And you know why? Because we don't have the originals.

Just like you can't, from the 100s of posts I've made so far, probably thousands from previous boards, figure out what I deleted from my post, there's no way you can figure out what was changed by others without the original.
We can also go back to the earliest Latin Bibles and compare those translations to the Greek we have no problems.
OG. We know there have been changes made. Many versions have made those corrections. Those changes are pretty well known by now. If there was one change, then there are probably more. Well, there have been more. If there are many changes, then it's obvious that there are other changes that we are simply not aware of because we DON'T HAVE THE ORIGINALS.
You are desperate here. Your assumptive argument doesn't fly.
LOL. No. I'm not assuming anything. I'm stating facts. 1. There have been changes made. 2. We don't have the originals. From these two facts, 3. There is no way we can know if there weren't more changes made without the originals and 4. There is no way you can know what the originals contained without the originals.

From this I conclude that the copyists of the Bible badly abused it down through the centuries. It is not pristine. It is not preserved. It is certainly not inerrant. It needs a second witness from an unbiased unadulterated source. That would be the Book of Mormon. I'm not desperate. I'm right.
 

organgrinder

Super Member
I'm sure that's what you think, but you are wrong. We have proof that they made changes. If we have proof that they made changes, then what proof do you have that earlier copyists didn't make changes? None. And you know why? Because we don't have the originals.

Just like you can't, from the 100s of posts I've made so far, probably thousands from previous boards, figure out what I deleted from my post, there's no way you can figure out what was changed by others without the original.

OG. We know there have been changes made. Many versions have made those corrections. Those changes are pretty well known by now. If there was one change, then there are probably more. Well, there have been more. If there are many changes, then it's obvious that there are other changes that we are simply not aware of because we DON'T HAVE THE ORIGINALS.

LOL. No. I'm not assuming anything. I'm stating facts. 1. There have been changes made. 2. We don't have the originals. From these two facts, 3. There is no way we can know if there weren't more changes made without the originals and 4. There is no way you can know what the originals contained without the originals.

From this I conclude that the copyists of the Bible badly abused it down through the centuries. It is not pristine. It is not preserved. It is certainly not inerrant. It needs a second witness from an unbiased unadulterated source. That would be the Book of Mormon. I'm not desperate. I'm right.
You are desperately stretching and assuming. and... I don't care what you have or may have deleted from your posts. They aren't God breathed and given to us for our edification
 

organgrinder

Super Member
You are desperately stretching and assuming. and... I don't care what you have or may have deleted from your posts. They aren't God breathed and given to us for our edification. scriptures is: see 2 Timothy 3:16 which says:


All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
(2 Timothy 3:16 NKJV)

We assume changes have been made. In fact you MUST assume they have been made because of what your false prophet said. The first attack in human history was against the written word of God by Satan. God didn't really say that, did He? Perhaps you doubt that event also. We don't have the originals for that either. You TMBs are sad folks when it comes to believing what God says and what he has given us.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I'm sure that's what you think, but you are wrong. We have proof that they made changes.

If you have "proof", then where IS that "proof"?
Why can't you provide any?

If we have proof that they made changes, then what proof do you have that earlier copyists didn't make changes? None. And you know why? Because we don't have the originals.

You're shifting the burden of proof.
YOU made the claim that "they made changes".
YOU have the burden of proof to demonstrate it (from "proof" you claim exists, but are unable to show).

OG. We know there have been changes made.

Prove it.

Many versions have made those corrections.

Prove it.

Those changes are pretty well known by now.

Then it should be NO TROUBLE for you to actually DEMONSTRATE them.
Why can't you?
 

organgrinder

Super Member
If you have "proof", then where IS that "proof"?
Why can't you provide any?



You're shifting the burden of proof.
YOU made the claim that "they made changes".
YOU have the burden of proof to demonstrate it (from "proof" you claim exists, but are unable to show).



Prove it.



Prove it.



Then it should be NO TROUBLE for you to actually DEMONSTRATE them.
Why can't you?
That, Theo is obvious. There isn't any. Perhaps Mormons believe claims are proof.
 
Top