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

Theo1689

Well-known member
Could you explain for us how testifying Jesus Christ is an exalted man--somehow is a "low Christology"?

Simple.

Testifying that Christ is merely a "man", even an "exalted man", is "low Christology".

Testifying that Christ is GOD/DEITY, is "high Christology".

Mormonism: "man becomes [a] god".
Christianity: "GOD became a man."

It's all about the starting point.


IOW--the Biblical NT testimony--is a "low Christology"?

It's not (since you asked).

Acts 2:33---King James Version
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

It doesn't say, "exalted man".

Acts 5:30-31--King James Version
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

It doesn't say, "exalted man".

Philippians 2:9---King James Version
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

It doesn't say, "exalted man".


1 Timothy 2:5---King James Version
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Yes, Christ is God who BECAME a man.
But He was God first (and always).
And this verse doesn't call Him an "exalted man".
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
Yes, Christ is God who BECAME a man.
But He was God first (and always).
And this verse doesn't call Him an "exalted man".

Just a note, Theo--God the Son didn't only become a man--He still is a man:

1 Timothy 2:5---King James Version
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Theo

It doesn't say, "exalted man".

So--when did the "man Jesus Christ"--lose His exaltation?

Revelation 3:21---King James Version
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
Congratulations! You've found the councils of Florence and Trent.

What I found is an answer to the baseless statement:

Theo1689 said:
Correction... . They were (officially) "recognized" as canon by that time.
They were always canon, however, and were quoted frequently by the Apostolic Fathers, and ECF's.

And before they try to twist your words, they were never "voted" upon.

Again:

ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445) | EWTN

Second, on February 4, 1442, Session 11 at the Council of Florence, the Council proclaimed:.....

Third, two separate votes at the Council of Trent were taken regarding the canon of the entire bible. The first vote was whether that Council (of Trent) should officially confirm the books listed at the council of Florence (see above). The vote was 100% yea. The second vote was whether or not an anathema should be added to this decree of the canon. That vote went 24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain. Remember - the Catholic Church in the West, as evidenced by Pope Damasus I and later, the Council of Florence, had “settled” on 73 books comprising the OT and NT. But no official decree had ever been issued.

So, with a “slight of hand”, White uses factual statistics from the Council of Trent that evidences a vote regarding the canon of the entire bible, but he fails to explain that two votes occurred, and that his “40%” vote did not pertain to only canonicity - it pertained to adding an “anathema” to the canon that had long been accepted (albeit, unofficially).

One thing to keep in mind: St. Jerome himself had serious doubts about the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books, whereas St. Augustine did not. Nevertheless, St. Jerome performed his commission given to him by Pope Damasus I and compiled the deuteros in his Latin Vulgate.

In 1997, in his book “The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance”, Bruce M. Metzger, a noted Protestant biblical scholar, said, beginning on p. 246, “Finally on 8 April 1546, by a vote of 24 to 15, with 16 abstensions, the Council issued a decree (De Canonicis Scripturis) in which, for the first time in the history of the Church, the question of the contents of the Bible was made an absolute article of faith and confirmed by an anathema.”
 

organgrinder

Super Member
This forum has become too boring, so I don't hang around this place very often anymore. There are more interesting debates taking place on other forums.
You mean interesting because people won't challenge you and force you to confront what your cult church teaches?
Ok. See you. Too bad you are so scared to engage.
 

zerinus

Well-known member
You mean interesting because people won't challenge you and force you to confront what your cult church teaches?
Ok. See you. Too bad you are so scared to engage.
LOL! No "challenge". The Antis are bankrupt of ideas. They have nothing more to say that is worth listening to.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
But what I wrote is the truth
I'm not sure what you're talking about.
that IS what your church has done to our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ!
Still a mystery.
But what I wrote is the truth--that IS what your church has done to our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ! Your church has an abysmally low Christology--rendering the great and uncreated Word of God as an exalted creature, the actual brother of Satan (!) in the supposed pre-mortal existence. Shameful.
Again, no reasoning, just a condescending tone and a final write-off.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
No, it has not been done for you. Making corrections in translating the Bible from ancient manuscript copies into good English (or another language) is NOT the same thing as deliberately leaving out important things that were supposedly in the manuscripts in the first place.
I'm not talking about making corrections in translating or correcting the translations later. I'm talking about adding text that isn't there in earlier copies.
You know, the "plain and precious" stuff Smith claimed had been taken out. Including a prophesy about himself, in Deuteronomy, I think it is....
That is in the Pearl of Great Price. It's not in the JST.
First you wrote things have been added or deleted from modern Bibles (paraphrasing)...NOW you are saying "those corrections have been incorporated into most modern versions of the Bible." Soooooo....that must mean you think that those Bible versions are accurate.
You clearly don't understand the argument or are being obtuse on purpose. We can never know if any version of the Bible is accurate until we have the original manuscripts. That's my argument. No matter how many thousands of later manuscripts we have, none of them can be determined to be accurate until we have the original. Therefore, the manuscripts propagate the errors and we are ignorant of them, without a second witness and without apostles and prophets. You all don't have any of those. We have both of them.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Oh, so putting himself in a prophesy in Deuteronomy was "clarifying" the intended meaning of a passage?
The JST is not the Pearl of Great Price.
Like this passage of his from Romans 4:

The KJV, and every other version I know of, does not have the "not."
Yea. Common sense change. God doesn't justify the ungodly. It would be absurd to think that he did. You probably believe he does though. You believe that, but not Ps 82. Got it.
The godly need no justification, the UNgodly DO, for we are all sinners
Based on your interpretation of that scripture, rapists, murderers, and thieves are all justified, right? I don't believe anyone believes that. The term ungodly indicates to me that they are unrepentant sinners. God has made no offer to justify them or to save them. Bonnie, those who are saved, must do something different than those who are not saved. I would suggest that the ungodly are among those who are not saved or justified.
There is no "AND WORKS' in this passage in the correct translations
So you say, but we know and have demonstrated that faith and works are two sides of the same coin. The word might not be in the original text if we ever find it, but the addition to the text is correct. I have yet to see any reference to faith where works wasn't also included, so wherever I read the word "faith", I also see the word "works". It goes without saying if one understands what faith is. Joseph Smith just made it clear that works and faith go hand in hand.
but look what Smith wrote HERE in his so-called "inspired" version of the Bible, as articulated on mrm.org:
Again, the problem is interpretation. I can't even tell what they are trying to get at from the incoherent text you provided. Are they suggesting that he copied Luther? I don't believe Joseph did. I believe he came to his conclusion on his own without Luther's aid, but Luther explained why he added the word that didn't exist in the original text.

This change happens to be one that wasn't included in our new version of the KJV Bible where we included the JST either in footnotes or in the appendix. Many members of our church aren't even aware that that change exists. I don't now why, but I suspect that it may be over a dispute about where the word "alone" is actually supposed to be placed. It could also be because the way the 1944 version of the JST shows it, it contradicts other emendations the JST introduced into the KJV. I'm not going to argue for or against. To me, this is not common sense but instead was intended to emphasize the meaning of the effects of justification and the purpose that faith brings that justification to us. It, in no way, alludes to faith without works. One of Luther's explanations for his translation was that alone was meant to be an adverb and not an adjective. His translation was, "Now we hold that Man is justified, without doing the work of the law, alone through faith". It was not intended to be "faith alone" but "alone through faith", the same appears to be true of Joseph Smith's emendation based on original sources (the Bible he marked with the change and where he marked where the word was to be inserted). The implication is that everyone has access to justification through faith or better, that everyone has access to be acquitted through faith without the works of the law. Being perfect is not a prerequisite. That's what I believe Luther said he meant. I believe that is what Joseph Smith meant and I believe that's what the original New Testament author meant if we take Rom 3:28 in context.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Bonnie--neither you, nor anyone else--has addressed the posted evidence:

https://journal.interpreterfoundati...l-in-the-hebrew-bible-and-the-book-of-mormon/

[Page 168]As it reads in the kjv, Moses sings here that God established national boundaries based on the number of the children of Israel (בני ישראל; bĕnê yiśĕrā’ēl) and retained the Israelites (“Jacob”) for himself. More recent translations of this passage, however, contained a significant variant reading.

Remember the days of old, consider the years long past; ask your father, and he will inform you; your elders, and they will tell you. When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods; the LORD’S own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share. (NRSV vv. 7–9, emphasis added)

Here the nations are not divided according to the number of the children of Israel but rather according to the number of the gods. Whence this new reading? The ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible known today as the Septuagint recorded that God divided the nations “according to the number of the angels of God” (κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων θεοῦ; kata arithmon angelōn theou). This was long assumed to be an error, and so the Masoretic Text was preferred by the translators of the kjv. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the mid-twentieth century, however, scholars revisited this matter. Among the recovered fragments was a text (4QDeutj) giving a much earlier reading of v. 8 that significantly diverged from the Masoretic Text. Rather than dividing the nations according to the number of the children of Israel, God, in this textual witness, is said to have divided the nations according to the number of “the sons of God” (בני אלוהים; bĕnê ’ēlōhîm).Carmel McCarthy, writing in the authoritative Biblia Hebraica Quinta, could see no other reason for this variant than it arose through “deliberate emendation” by scribes with “theological motives.”

But the scribal alterations did not end with v. 8. At the conclusion of the song, Moses exults, “Rejoice, O ye nations [גוים; gōyîm], with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and [Page 169]to his people” (kjv v. 43). Again, consulting modern translations reveals a significant difference. “Praise, O heavens, his people, worship him, all you gods! For he will avenge the blood of his children, and take vengeance on his adversaries; he will repay those who hate him, and cleanse the land for his people” (NRSV v. 43, emphasis added). The reading provided by the NRSV (among other modern translations), draws from the textual witness of 4QDeutq. As preserved in this fragment, Moses adjures the members of the divine council, identified as “gods” (אלהים; ’ēlōhîm), to worship Yahweh. A poetic parallelism conceptually linking the “heavens” (שמים; šāmaîm) and the “gods” (אלהים; ’ēlōhîm) is also evident in the Qumran version, but lost in the Masoretic reworking, which changed “heavens” to “nations” and omitted reference to the gods worshipping Yahweh altogether. The reading in 4QDeutq aligns closely with the Septuagint, which represents Moses as commanding: “Rejoice, O heavens, with him [i.e. God], and bow down before him, all you sons of God” (εὐφράνθητε, οὐρανοί, ἅμα αὐτῷ, καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες υἱοὶ θεοῦ; euphanthēte ouranoi hama autō euphanthēte ouranoi hama autō kai proskynēsatōsan autō pantes uioi theou).

The transmission of Deuteronomy 32 indicates that the divine council is (or was) so overtly present in the text that scribes wishing to downplay the apparent polytheism undertook alterations that would make it theologically suitable for emerging orthodox trends toward a “purer” monotheism. Bernard Levinson sees in this passage “mythological imagery of God presiding over the divine council” that “almost certainly” challenged the monotheism of the copyists handling the text, which in turn “triggered the attempts to purge the text of polytheistic elements.”Paul Sanders summarizes the current scholarly consensus on this matter nicely: “Both in v. 8b and 43a the fragments from Qumran contain references to gods beside YHWH whereas such references are not found in the [Masoretic Text] and the Samaritan Pentateuch. In the latter versions the absence of these references would seem to be due to deliberate elimination.”
Yes. Proof of changes made to the Bible. Our critics read right past that and continue their "no proof" charade.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
You mean interesting because people won't challenge you and force you to confront what your cult church teaches?
Ok. See you. Too bad you are so scared to engage.
That's not the problem. You all won't engage. That's the problem. Z apparently gets more traction with forums that will engage. This forum is a zoo where Mormons are kept in a one-way debate cage. But those are the rules. You all tell us that if we want to debate, we need to go to another forum.
 

The Prophet

Well-known member
So where are the apostles "in the church"? I know where they are and I know where the church is. It appears that you don't,
Jesus is OUR APOSTLE and he is the head of the CHURCH

yrJoB6R.jpg
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
LOL! No "challenge". The Antis are bankrupt of ideas. They have nothing more to say that is worth listening to.

Why won’t you even answer questions and participate in discussion of mormonism? This forum is your chance to speak about mormon beliefs.
 

zerinus

Well-known member
Why won’t you even answer questions and participate in discussion of mormonism? This forum is your chance to speak about mormon beliefs.
The Mormonism forum has become a bit boring to be honest. It is the same old stuff most of the time. If something interesting was said at some point I may deside to respond to it if I see it, which I may not, since I don't hag around this place as much as before.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
Yea. Common sense change. God doesn't justify the ungodly. It would be absurd to think that he did.
One could not align that statement, as an open-ended statement--with LDS theology.

Jesus Christ justified all men of life--including the ungodly--as a free gift to all men--when it comes to the Atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ absolving all men of the condemnation brought upon all men due to the Fall:

Romans 5:18---King James Version
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

The LDS church teaches Jesus Christ died for all men--absolving them from the guilt brought to all men due to the Fall.(justified all men of life)

IOW--all men now have the opportunity to inherit eternal life--due to the Ransom Jesus made for all men. It was a free, unconditional gift to all men--including the ungodly.

The Book of Mormon teaches the same.

I believe you are referring to justification--as to the personal reception of eternal life--which I would agree--that isn't a free gift. That gift only goes to them which obey God.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Yea. Common sense change. God doesn't justify the ungodly. It would be absurd to think that he did. You probably believe he does though.

You know, it's funny... This poster accuses the scribes of intentionally changing Scripture, but here he goes, "It says God justifies the ungodly. I don't believe it, so I'm going to change it to something I believe instead." Just like his pal, Joseph Smith. It seems that it's not so much that the scribes actually changed Scripture, he is simply PROJECTING his own beliefs and actions onto the scribes.

And imagine what it would be like if one could simply reject any Scripture that didn't match what someone subjectively considers "common sense". Men would be free to pick and choose what they wanted to believe, and ignore the rest, and there would be pure chaos. No WONDER there are thousands of Mormon sects in existence!

Yea. Common sense change. God doesn't justify the ungodly. It would be absurd to think that he did. You probably believe he does though.

Yep, we probably believe He does, because GOD SAID SO, right there in Scripture.
As the saying goes, "God said it, we believe it, that settles it."

Rom. 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

Of course, Smith didn't like that verse, and so he took it upon himself to CHANGE it to "justifieth NOT the ungodly", but there are ZERO (repeat, ZERO) manuscripts to support his change. EVERY SINGLE manuscript we have of Romans has the reading found in the KJV and all translations.

But it's not just Scripture, it actually IS "common sense", that "God justifies the ungodly". If we were ALREADY "godly", there would be no need to "justify" us, since we would already be "just". We NEED God to justify is, because we cannot justify ourselves. If we were already godly before God justified us, what does God "justifying" us actually accomplish? Does He simply "recognize" or "notarize" or "declare" what we have already done for ourselves?

There was a poster here, years ago, AaronShaf. Between the two of us, we came up with a good analogy of the ridiculousness of Mormon theology. Making ourselves "godly" before we are justified is like cleaning our house from top to bottom, before we hire the maid. The whole point of HAVING a maid is to clean the house for us!

Yea. Common sense change. God doesn't justify the ungodly. It would be absurd to think that he did. You probably believe he does though. You believe that, but not Ps 82. Got it.

Now THAT is an interesting comment, isn't it?
It points out the blatant double standard of Mormons.
They're allowed to reject Scripture they don't like (such as Rom. 4:5), but we're not allowed to reject Scripture WE don't like. "Rules for thee, but not for me."

And that's the whole problem with the Mormon view that the Bible has been "corrupted". If it has been corrupted, how do you know that Rom. 4:5 has been corrupted, but Ps. 82 hasn't? That's very conVEEEEEEEEEEEnient and self-serving, wouldn't you say? Last I checked, there hasn't been an official "list" of "corrupted verses in the Bible" put out by the "prophet".

But regarding Ps. 82, I can answer in two ways... We don't believe the MORMON misinterpretation of it, and rightly so, because the Mormon misinterpretation is contradicted by Deut. 4:35,39, Deut. 32:39, 1 Kings 8:60, Ps. 86:10, Isa. 44:6,8, Isa. 45:5,21,22, Isa. 46:9, Mark 12:32, 1 Cor. 8:4, etc. etc. etc. (btw, I type them out each time, from memory).

But we DO actually believe Ps. 82. We believe it and interpret it in a different way than Mormons do. We interpret it in a way that is consistent with ALL of Scripture.

Based on your interpretation of that scripture, rapists, murderers, and thieves are all justified, right?

Of course not.
The sins are not justified.
But the sinner can be forgiven.

Rom. 4:7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

I don't believe anyone believes that. The term ungodly indicates to me that they are unrepentant sinners.

Correct. And God causes them to be PENITENT through regeneration.
That's why He gives us a new heart, that makes us sorrowful for what we've done.

God has made no offer to justify them or to save them. Bonnie, those who are saved, must do something different than those who are not saved.

Sorry, that's not Biblical.
That's you making up your own personal theology.
Perhaps you can realize that theology over your own world when you get "promoted" to Godhood.
But for now, we live in God the Father's world.
And we live by HIS reality, not yours.

I would suggest that the ungodly are among those who are not saved or justified.

And I would "suggest" that God says you're wrong (Rom. 4:5).

So you say, but we know and have demonstrated that faith and works are two sides of the same coin. The word might not be in the original text if we ever find it, but the addition to the text is correct.

I love how Mormons think they can play fast and loose with Scripture, and add to it indescriminantly, without ANY basis whatsoever.

Again, it seems that Mormons are projecting their OWN editorial "authority" onto the ancient scribes.


I have yet to see any reference to faith where works wasn't also included, so wherever I read the word "faith", I also see the word "works".

When "works" are mentioned, they are (1) excluded as to being "required" for salvation, and (2) what we will walk in AFTER we are saved:

Eph. 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

2 Tim. 1:9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,

Tit. 3:5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,

Rom. 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

Rom. 11:5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.



Funny how "works" is always NEGATED in these passages...
 
Top