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

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Why would I need to make one up? But I can make up a couple. Like saying....obesity is the offspring of overeating
Sure, one thing always produces the other. And while it doesn't actually mean giving birth (which I never said it did), it does mean that one produced the other. You can look at Paul's statement as being representative of creation. However, he was drawing a direct correlation between the physical nature of God and man. That God isn't made up of stone or wood or precious metal, but that we are all like him, made in his image, having similar attributes such that we are His offspring. It's very difficult, IMO, to confuse the message Paul is presenting.

I checked and the Hebrew word used here does mean "offspring".
LOL. Okay. Do you know what it means?
Do you think it means that the earth made a bunch of baby earths? Because that isn't what Paul meant. Paul was referring specifically to the kind of being God is and the correlation is that we are like God, his children.
So did the earth literally give birth to everything on it?
Everything literally came from it, even man. But, so did gold and stone and wood. Do you think that's the way Paul was making the connection? I think you do. Everything comes from God so, even the rocks and the metals and the trees are the offspring of God in that sense. Do you think that's the way Paul meant it? It seems odd, that if it was, that Paul specifically rejected those offspring.
Did it have relations with another planet and then have labor pains and pop out plants and animals? Are plants and animals the same "species" as planet Earth? IF offspring is always meant to be taken literally in the Bible?
LOL. No. And I don't believe Paul meant that God had labor pains either to produce us either. What you have described above and this little passage clearly indicates that God didn't have sex to make us his offspring and at the same time, Paul's use of the word indicates something far more close than simply being a creation of his, else his argument would have been moot. The debate is how close. It appears that it's a lot closer than being outside of time and space, a disinterested figure except to those who love him and then discard the rest, else why would Paul claim that he is the progenitor of man, if Paul didn't mean it exactly that way?

Again, we know that he didn't give birth to each of us, either in the spirit or in life. Of course, Paul didn't mean it intimately, but he did mean it in the same sense that we are Adam's offspring. I believe db has displayed a verse that explicitly shows that Adam is the son of God. And of course, that is no more literally than me saying that I am a child of Adam. I am, but not directly.

I admit, I spoke too soon about the literalness of the word offspring. It is being used figuratively in Isa 42:5. It's used figuratively elsewhere. It is even being used figuratively in Acts 17, but; there, it is no more figurative than me saying that I'm the offspring of Adam. If it was simply as the creator, then the rocks, metals and wood would also be the offspring of God.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
Saying if he didn’t prove it by the scriptures he can be called a fallen prophet.
He mis-interpreted the scripture and died 2 months later.
To this day, it’s still not found in the Standard Works.
A false prophet founded your religion. What else did he “mis-interpret?”
 

Bonnie

Super Member
In the NT? Nowhere. JS wasn’t alive to be written about, silly.

Where does the Bible say we need to repent for not following a proven false prophet?
The Book of Mormon does testify of the Church and the promise of the Elijah, who came to Joseph Smith. But I’m sure you don’t care to understand that.

I can understand it just fine. But I will not believe it, that Elijah came to Smith. :rolleyes:
FYI - This isn’t found in Mormon scripture either, yet, you choose to pin in on our beliefs as canonized doctrine.

Sorry, but Smith DID teach it in his KFD and it is taught to this day in your church and is on your church's website. Plus Smith declared that the Snow couplet was accurate and your church still endorses it. IF it doesn't believe this nonsense, then why is it taught?
It also implicates being God a different species than man.
The Book of John is sufficient to describe the nature of the Godhead.

Certainly God isn't the same "species" as we are! There is the great and uncreated God and there is...everything else, which is created. You are on the right track here.
I’ve already addressed this. It would be pointless to do it again if it’s just ignored.

I don't remember where exactly you addressed this. Or what exactly you wrote, but if I did read it, I must not have believed your explanation. Because the BoM IS even more explicitly Trinitarian than the Bible, where it is strongly implicit. The BoM calls Father, Son, and HG "one God" or "one." So does the testimony of the Three Witnesses.
What statement are you thinking of the justify this statement?

The ones in the BoM where it says that Jesus is His own Father.
What makes your interpretation/understanding authoritatively accurate over mine?

All your doing is validating the criteria of your religion against mine. Of course it’s going to fail to meet your standard.

I am just pointing out that nowhere does the Bible say we MUST have apostles AND Prophets for a church to be true.
Acting like Theo doesn’t become you.

Accusing me falsely doesn't become you, either. I was simply stating a fact: "But what NO ONE NEEDS are the false prophets and false apostles of the LDS church, who preach heresies and false doctrines found nowhere in the Bible?"
It’s called the baptism of fire:
baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire, Matt. 3:11
same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost, John 1:33.
Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom, John 3:5.
ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, Acts 1:5.
they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, Acts 2:4.
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, 1 Pet. 1:23.
Okay.
That’s a good question. Do you see anywhere in the Bible that it’s ok to break your promises?

Do you see anyplace in the Bible where it says it is fine and dandy to make promises and covenants to a false God? And I notice that you did NOT even answer my question about Vishnu. IF a Hindu made a covenant with Vishnu, would he still need to keep that covenant IF he became a true Christian and believed in Jesus Christ as Lord and God and Savior?
Yes, sorry.
When it’s used, it’s in the context of what we can become, not of teaching the deification of God the Father.

That is false, Aaron. I think you are refusing to see the implications of the Snow couplet: "As man NOW is, God ONCE WAS. As God NOW is, man may become." God once was as WE are NOW. What are we NOW, Aaron?
 
Last edited:

Bonnie

Super Member
Sure, one thing always produces the other. And while it doesn't actually mean giving birth (which I never said it did), it does mean that one produced the other. You can look at Paul's statement as being representative of creation. However, he was drawing a direct correlation between the physical nature of God and man. That God isn't made up of stone or wood or precious metal, but that we are all like him, made in his image, having similar attributes such that we are His offspring. It's very difficult, IMO, to confuse the message Paul is presenting.

But the word can also be used figuratively--can't it?

If it is so difficult to confuse what Paul is presenting--then why do Mormons confuse it, when Paul clearly--not once but 3 times--said we are the children of God BY ADOPTION? And that we are adopted TO God THROUGH faith in Christ Jesus our Lord? And that we are fellow heirs along with Him? And how do they confuse what John wrote that receiving Jesus Christ and believing in Him we have the right TO BECOME the children of God? IF we already WERE God's own real, spirit children in the pre-mortal spirit existence ,we already WOULD be God's children...so why would we need to right to become His children? Are we by nature, children of God?
LOL. Okay. Do you know what it means?
Do you think it means that the earth made a bunch of baby earths? Because that isn't what Paul meant. Paul was referring specifically to the kind of being God is and the correlation is that we are like God, his children.

LOL! Yes, I do know what it means. Do YOU think it means that the earth gave birth literally to everything on it? That it had cosmic whoopie with another planet and produced all the plants, animals, bacteria, etc. on it?

Being made in God's image doesn't mean looking like him, or that God the father is flesh and bones as we are. The "image" we are made in, is that Adam and Eve were holy as He is. They reflected some of His characteristics--holiness, ability to love and self-sacrifice, and have an active will. We lost that shiny image when they fell into sin. We still retain some of the characteristics, but the most important one--holiness--we lost completely. But it is renewed partially at least, this side of Heaven, by grace through faith in Christ Jesus our Lord.

"The image of God in man is basically moral and spiritual: this is indicated in Colossians 3:10, 'And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him.' In conjunction we may add Ephesians 4:24, 'And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.'" (from tecmaltadotorg)
Everything literally came from it, even man. But, so did gold and stone and wood. Do you think that's the way Paul was making the connection? I think you do. Everything comes from God so, even the rocks and the metals and the trees are the offspring of God in that sense. Do you think that's the way Paul meant it? It seems odd, that if it was, that Paul specifically rejected those offspring.

Yes, everything comes from God. He made the earth and then everything on the earth and from the earth. Even rocks and stone and gold. But are these things the literal children of the earth? Are they our planet's literal children? If that were true, since like produces like, then it seems to me that literal children of our earth would be other planets--not plankton, bacteria, plants and animals...
LOL. No. And I don't believe Paul meant that God had labor pains either to produce us either. What you have described above and this little passage clearly indicates that God didn't have sex to make us his offspring and at the same time, Paul's use of the word indicates something far more close than simply being a creation of his, else his argument would have been moot. The debate is how close. It appears that it's a lot closer than being outside of time and space, a disinterested figure except to those who love him and then discard the rest, else why would Paul claim that he is the progenitor of man, if Paul didn't mean it exactly that way?

In the broadest sense, we are all "children of God" because He created all of us. But we are not, by nature, children of God. Only those who believe in the true Jesus Christ of the Bible for salvation, great and free, are members of His "household" and heirs of eternal life.
Again, we know that he didn't give birth to each of us, either in the spirit or in life. Of course, Paul didn't mean it intimately, but he did mean it in the same sense that we are Adam's offspring. I believe db has displayed a verse that explicitly shows that Adam is the son of God. And of course, that is no more literally than me saying that I am a child of Adam. I am, but not directly.

I admit, I spoke too soon about the literalness of the word offspring. It is being used figuratively in Isa 42:5. It's used figuratively elsewhere. It is even being used figuratively in Acts 17, but; there, it is no more figurative than me saying that I'm the offspring of Adam. If it was simply as the creator, then the rocks, metals and wood would also be the offspring of God.
Being Adam's offspring means we are his descendants and have his nature. So, if you say "offspring" of God means the same thing as Adam's offspring, then are you saying we are God's descendants and have HIS nature? But I do appreciate your being willing to admit to error. Thank you.
 
Last edited:

Aaron32

Well-known member
A false prophet founded your religion. What else did he “mis-interpret?”
I personally think He was wrong on polygamy, but that’s just my opinion.

The point is, every member has the companionship of the Holy Ghost, a prophets speaks by the Holy Ghost. If the Holy Ghost is absent, the either the prophet didn’t have the Holy Ghost when he spoke, or I don’t have the Holy Ghost or I’m misunderstanding what he’s saying.

Truth is truth, Mormonism is the pursuit of truth, and it doesn’t confound itself. If a prophet seemingly contradicts scripture, then he’s either wrong OR I misunderstand the scripture, or I misunderstand what he’s saying.

if a prophet contradicts obvious scientific truths, such as “Quakers on the moon” then the prophet is wrong, and is expressing personal opinion. If the science is inconclusive and the prophets claim is plausible, then it’s plausible.

The thing is, a prophets role is to lead us to eternal life - to help us know the Father and the Son via the Holy Ghost, and lead us to repentance, and inspire us to change our ways.

To have honest reasoning, is you can’t cherry-pick statements that only fit your narrative. If Joseph Smith claims “a prophet is a prophet when acting as such” and thereby putting a disclaimer that individuals need to be spiritually self-reliant, you can’t simply ignore that, and claim it as a cult.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
To have honest reasoning, is you can’t cherry-pick statements that only fit your narrative.

Then by your own admission, YOU don't "have honest reasoning".

You "cherry-pick" the couple of "multiple gods" passages, and ignore all the "only one god" passages.

You "cherry-pick" the "works are required" passages, and ignore all the "not by works" passages.

And you're right, it's NOT "honest reasoning".


If Joseph Smith claims “a prophet is a prophet when acting as such” and thereby putting a disclaimer that individuals need to be spiritually self-reliant, you can’t simply ignore that, and claim it as a cult.

Certainly we can.
We can (and MUST) ignore false prophets, and cult religions like Mormonism.
We MUST.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
I personally think He was wrong on polygamy, but that’s just my opinion.

The point is, every member has the companionship of the Holy Ghost, a prophets speaks by the Holy Ghost. If the Holy Ghost is absent, the either the prophet didn’t have the Holy Ghost when he spoke, or I don’t have the Holy Ghost or I’m misunderstanding what he’s saying.

Truth is truth, Mormonism is the pursuit of truth, and it doesn’t confound itself. If a prophet seemingly contradicts scripture, then he’s either wrong OR I misunderstand the scripture, or I misunderstand what he’s saying.

if a prophet contradicts obvious scientific truths, such as “Quakers on the moon” then the prophet is wrong, and is expressing personal opinion. If the science is inconclusive and the prophets claim is plausible, then it’s plausible.

The thing is, a prophets role is to lead us to eternal life - to help us know the Father and the Son via the Holy Ghost, and lead us to repentance, and inspire us to change our ways.

To have honest reasoning, is you can’t cherry-pick statements that only fit your narrative. If Joseph Smith claims “a prophet is a prophet when acting as such” and thereby putting a disclaimer that individuals need to be spiritually self-reliant, you can’t simply ignore that, and claim it as a cult.

I think you should re-read what you just wrote. “You can’t cherry-pick statements that only fit your narrative.” But that’s what you’re doing in mormonism. You realize that Smith was wrong about many things. But you still make excuses for it.

A false prophet is a false prophet. You can’t simply ignore that and pick out what you want to believe. Christ’s gospel is complete truth, not interspersed with lies and false doctrine.

Spirit is showing you that mormonism didn’t come from Christ. It’s not the path to Him. Following His words is the only way.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Personal attack
I think you should re-read what you just wrote. “You can’t cherry-pick statements that only fit your narrative.” But that’s what you’re doing in mormonism. You realize that Smith was wrong about many things. But you still make excuses for it.

No, if I include ALL statements. doctrine is determined beyond what the prophet says. There's other witnesses to confirm, including the scriptures and the Spirit.
I don't have to make excuses. JS excused himself. On the other hand, all we have to determine what the Church's doctrine is "because I said so" so that you can contort it into whatever you want to.

A false prophet is a false prophet. You can’t simply ignore that and pick out what you want to believe.
Your definition of a "false prophet" is different than mine. So, yes, I CAN ignore your definition and be in perfect alignment of the scriptures.

Christ’s gospel is complete truth, not interspersed with lies and false doctrine.
Agreed.

Spirit is showing you that mormonism didn’t come from Christ. It’s not the path to Him.
Edit per mod

Following His words is the only way.
Agreed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Magdalena

Well-known member
No, if I include ALL statements. doctrine is determined beyond what the prophet says. There's other witnesses to confirm, including the scriptures and the Spirit.
I don't have to make excuses. JS excused himself. On the other hand, all we have to determine what the Church's doctrine is "because I said so" so that you can contort it into whatever you want to.


Your definition of a "false prophet" is different than mine. So, yes, I CAN ignore your definition and be in perfect alignment of the scriptures.


Agreed.


It's amazing what pride and arrogance does to people. You know what the Spirit is showing me?


Agreed.

That’s not pride and arrogance. It’s experience. And truth.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
Nowhere does the NT say we MUST have "apostles" and "prophets.
How important do you feel a foundation is?

Ephesians 2:20---King James Version
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

And that was the living, mortal apostles and prophets the NT church had.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
Why don't you remember that we HAVE? Many times? Do you think you will change our minds, if you repeat yourself all the time?

Are we by nature children of God?
Offspring are always of the same species as their natural F(f)athers:

Acts 17:29---King James Version
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
 

Bonnie

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.
Did you read this:
Offspring are always of the same species as their natural F(f)athers:

Acts 17:29---King James Version
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
Is. 42, NASB:
This is what God the Lord says,

Who created the heavens and stretched them out,
Who spread out the earth and its offspring,
Who gives breath to the people on it
And spirit to those who walk in it...
 

Bonnie

Super Member
How important do you feel a foundation is?

Ephesians 2:20---King James Version
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

And that was the living, mortal apostles and prophets the NT church had.
Yes it was....but they are the foundation that has already been laid--"ARE BUILT"....and the church is built on top of those apostles and prophets--so we don't need the false prophets and false apostles of Mormonism that preach a different gospel, a different Jesus, do we? When we have the true church built upon the TRUE prophets and TRUE apostles of the first century--do we?
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
Yes it was....but they are the foundation that has already been laid--"ARE BUILT"....
Then who dug it up and cast it away?

If it has already been laid--then it is still a truth.

Ephesians 2:20---King James Version
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Again--those were living, mortal apostles and prophets in the NT church.

When did God change?
When we have the true church built upon the TRUE prophets and TRUE apostles of the first century--do we?
Why would we have true apostles and true prophets--which were present with His church then, in the physical, mortal presence--and not have them now? This isn't the first century.

If it was a true principle of God then--when did God change?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Then who dug it up and cast it away?

Mormons did, when they rejected the true prophets and apostles for their own fake ones.

If it has already been laid--then it is still a truth.

Yes, it is.
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, Joel, et. al. are STILL the "prophets".
Peter, James, John, etc. are STILL the "apostles".

But Mormons have replaced God's prophets and apostles.

Ephesians 2:20---King James Version
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Again--those were living, mortal apostles and prophets in the NT church.

And when they died, Mormons replaced God's prophets and apostles.
For SHAME!

When did God change?

He didn't.

If it was a true principle of God then--when did God change?

He didn't.

Only the Mormon god changes.

"As man is, God once was." -- Lorenzo Snow.

"God the Father is an exalted man, and sets enthroned in yonder heavens!" -- Joseph Smith.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Then who dug it up and cast it away?

If it has already been laid--then it is still a truth.

Ephesians 2:20---King James Version
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Again--those were living, mortal apostles and prophets in the NT church.

When did God change?

Why would we have true apostles and true prophets--which were present with His church then, in the physical, mortal presence--and not have them now? This isn't the first century.

If it was a true principle of God then--when did God change?
What makes you think it was dug up and cast away? Isn't the church STILL built upon the ture apostles in the 1st century, and what they taught, and Isn't Jesus STILL the cornerstone? Did what they taught die?

Would Jesus want His church led by lying false prophets and false apostles that teach blasphemy and lead millions of people astray from the TRUE Gospel of the TRUE Jesus Christ of the Bible--into eternal darkness?
The true God of the Bible did not change, did He? But the FALSE God of Mormonism changed drastically, according to the Snow couplet, didn't he?

"As man NOW is, God once was...as God NOW is, man may become."
What is man NOW, dberrie? Care to tell us?
 
Last edited:

Theo1689

Well-known member
What makes you think it was dug up and cast away? Isn't the church STILL built upon the t[ru]e apostles in the 1st century, and what they taught, and Isn't Jesus STILL the cornerstone? Did what they taught die?

Good point.
If they "replaced" the foundation of apostles and prophets with new ones, then why didn't they replace Jesus, the cornerstone?
It's hypocritical to replace part but not the rest.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
What makes you think it was dug up and cast away?
It wasn't. The Lord's church is still built on the living, mortal apostles and prophets.

Does your church have the living, mortal apostles and prophets--as the NT church did?

Isn't the church STILL built upon the ture apostles in the 1st century, and what they taught, and Isn't Jesus STILL the cornerstone? Did what they taught die?
This isn't the first century. Yes, the Lord's church is still built upon the living, mortal apostles and prophets--just as they formed the foundation during the first century church. Their teachings are still with us--both the living, and those who have passed away.

The true God of the Bible did not change, did He?
No--that's the reason God's church still has living, mortal apostles and prophets. When did God change?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
So you know what the Spirit teaches me, but you don’t even know my last name? No, I can pretty guarantee that’s just pride talking.

Using "the Spirit" as an excuse to insult others is the lowest of the low, it's Edit per mod against God, and it demonstrates the bankruptcy that is Mormonism.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
It wasn't. The Lord's church is still built on the living, mortal apostles and prophets.

Does your church have the living, mortal apostles and prophets--as the NT church did?


This isn't the first century. Yes, the Lord's church is still built upon the living, mortal apostles and prophets--just as they formed the foundation during the first century church. Their teachings are still with us--both the living, and those who have passed away.


No--that's the reason God's church still has living, mortal apostles and prophets. When did God change?
Is the church built on FALSE living prophets and FALSE living apostles?

2 Cor. 11:11-15 NASB--12 But what I am doing I will also continue to do, so that I may eliminate the opportunity from those who want an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

Are living apostles that teach lies and false doctrines TRUE apostles? And are living prophets that do NOT prophesy real Prophets? And in the past, were the prophets who taught lies and false doctrines whom the church was build upon? You know, like the following false doctrines:

1. God the Father was not always God but was once a man on an earth, who had to learn how to become a God
2. Jesus and Satan are actual brothers in the supposed, pre-mortal existence
3. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate Gods.

Can the true church be built upon such folk that teach blasphemies like this? Would Jesus build His church upon them? Where does the NT say the church MUST have living apostles and living prophets in order for a church to be true?
 
Top