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

dberrie2020

Well-known member
Is the church built on FALSE living prophets and FALSE living apostles?
Do you believe these living, mortal apostles and prophets here--were false 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;

So--does your church have the living, mortal apostles and prophets?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Do you believe these living, mortal apostles and prophets here--were false prophets and apostles?
The ones in the Mormon church, yes.

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;

Nope.
Those weren't replaced (by Christians). They were replaced by MORMONS.
They (not any "replacements") ARE the "foundation" of the church.
Mormonism has ripped up the foundation, and replaced it with their own "foundation" of sand.

So--does your church have the living, mortal apostles and prophets?

Yes, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel, Amos, Peter, James, John, etc. etc., are STILL living.
They have no need to be "replaced".

31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.”

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do.

They have FALSE prophets and FALSE apostles.
Mormonism has torn up the Christian foundation, and replaced it with a corrupted one.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
The ones in the Mormon church, yes.



Nope.
Those weren't replaced (by Christians). They were replaced by MORMONS.
They (not any "replacements") ARE the "foundation" of the church.
Mormonism has ripped up the foundation, and replaced it with their own "foundation" of sand.



Yes, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel, Amos, Peter, James, John, etc. etc., are STILL living.
They have no need to be "replaced".

31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.”



They have FALSE prophets and FALSE apostles.
Mormonism has torn up the Christian foundation, and replaced it with a corrupted one.
You said it better than I did, Theo. Thanks.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Where does the Bible say we need to repent for not following a proven false prophet?
You reject the prophets at your own peril. It's not a commandment to do so. Prophets are, by nature fallible. The true test of a prophet is a witness by the spirit. That's why people heed their words, not because of some lame test that may take several millennia to fulfill. No one has that kind of time to wait.
Sorry, but Smith DID teach it in his KFD
Sorry, but no Joseph Smith didn't teach any such thing.
and it is taught to this day in your church and is on your church's website
False. Find me the quote that says that God, the Father "had to LEARN how to become a God". it doesn't exist.
Plus Smith declared that the Snow couplet was accurate
It is. Your interpretation is what's not accurate. Like Ps 82, you continue to insert words and/or concepts to make it fit your interpretation, but it doesn't. God, we can see in Jesus Christ, was once a man like we are now. Why anyone would believe that we think God was a sinner is beyond me. The implication is obvious, God was a mortal like we are now and the KFD clearly indicates that Jesus' life followed the same pattern His Father's life did. Hence, yes; God, the Father, was once a mortal who lived a perfect life and became the savior of his people, just like Jesus Christ is our Savior.

That is the message of the KFD.
IF it doesn't believe this nonsense, then why is it taught?
It's not taught.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
The ones in the BoM where it says that Jesus is His own Father.
There is no such passage. The scripture you are referring to describes Jesus' role as the husband, the bride is the church and all the people inside are his children. This, of course, is metaphorically speaking. Jesus becomes our Father through reconciliation.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
You reject the prophets at your own peril.

Then you reject Charles Manson at YOUR "own peril".
Then you reject Charles Taze Russell at YOUR "own peril".
Then you reject Rev. Moon at YOUR "own peril".
Then you reject Mary Baker Eddy at YOUR "own peril".
Then you reject Ted N.C. Wilson at YOUR "own peril".
Then you reject Mohammad at YOUR "own peril".
Then you reject Pope Francis at YOUR "own peril".
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
I am just pointing out that nowhere does the Bible say we MUST have apostles AND Prophets for a church to be true.
You'd be wrong. It clearly states that in the church there are FIRST apostles, second prophets. The question is are they supposed to be dead prophets and apostles or living ones. Since the person who said it was living, I'd say there is a strong indication that they are supposed to be living.

But you really can't say that the Bible doesn't say that we must have them. It does.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
If it is so difficult to confuse what Paul is presenting--then why do Mormons confuse it
Why do you all confuse it? It cannot be in the context of creation. If that were true, Paul's argument would make no sense.
when Paul clearly--not once but 3 times--said we are the children of God BY ADOPTION?
Regardless of what Paul said in three other places, ignoring the passage in Acts 17 in order to make those other passages fit your theology isn't taking the Bible as a whole. It's taking the parts you want and discarding the rest.
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?
The confusion is all yours, not ours. The adoption is to God (making us equal with Christ) through Christ. Christ becomes the head of the new household of faith. We become His responsibility as God, our God of gods and King of kings. The only way that the passages can be harmonized is if Jesus becomes the everlasting Father, as Isaiah claims he does. I don't believe that anyone can confuse which being in the Godhead that Isaiah is referring to.

This may be the basis that traditional Christianity was able to dupe the masses into ignoring the obvious context of the Bible that God is three separate beings into a being who has three personalities. I mean, how can the Messiah be called the everlasting Father if we already have a Heavenly Father. But still, the New Testament has sufficient evidence to make that argument fall flat on its face. There is no reason for God to present himself as three different entities if he is not.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
https://forums.carm.org/goto/post?id=34761

Would this be an example of that?

Isaiah 9:6---King James Version
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace

Again, "Father" in Hebrew often means "Creator" (Isa. 64:8, Mal. 2:10, etc.)

And even if this called Jesus "the Father", it doesn't call Him "HIS OWN" Father.
So nice try (not really).
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
I am just pointing out that nowhere does the Bible say we MUST have apostles AND Prophets for a church to be true.

The fact is--a structure can't even stand without having a foundation--much less be true:

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;

That was living, mortal apostles and apostles.

Something the critics don't enjoy, but The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Being made in God's image doesn't mean looking like him,
Yes. It does. If God were truly invisible, which we know he's not, then there would be no "image" to make us in.
The "image" we are made in, is that Adam and Eve were holy as He is.
No. They weren't. They disobeyed God and therefore are not as holy as He is. There is no evidence whatsoever to support that either of them was as holy as God is. Nor is there any evidence to indicate what that actually means.
They reflected some of His characteristics--holiness, ability to love and self-sacrifice, and have an active will.
I believe you just made that up. How do you know God's ability to love was instilled in Adam and Eve? Where do you see God ever self-sacrificing just for the sake of self-sacrificing? What active will do you see in Adam and Eve that you also see in God? I've never seen any of those things mentioned in the scriptures. Adam ate the fruit to die. He had no knowledge that there would be any recovery or sense of salvation or that his death would be a ransom for anyone. Jesus' sacrifice was not like Adam's at all. Adam's brought death with no hope of recovery. Christ's brought life and the hope of never dying again and an added hope of destiny that Adam didn't have before he ate the fruit. Adam and Eve's death was more of a romantic thing. That's isn't what Christ's death was.

My guess is we'll never find out the answers to any of these questions. Instead, what we'll get is, "I'm right because I say so". Their image was in attributes, even though I can't really identify a single one that they were created with that was like God's. But there is one that they obtained that was like God's and God didn't create it.
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.
No. That's the header to total depravity and men are not totally depraved.
"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.'
This image is not that image. This image speaks specifically that it is based on knowledge, not appearance. Genesis, it was based on appearance and likeness in the same way our children look like us. The image that comes from a renewed knowledge, meaning we once knew it but lost that information - it clearly indicates that we once knew - is holiness. Nothing in the Genesis passages indicate that Adam or Eve was holy. I don't know where you get that idea and I'm not even sure what you think holiness is.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
In the broadest sense, we are all "children of God" because He created all of us.
I specifically refuted that that is what Paul was inferring.
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.
and
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.
What you just said, which is what you believe outside of what the scripture actually says, would mean that rock and metal and stone 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?
We do not have our parents' nature. We have the same DNA and some characteristics but that's about it. If we had our parents nature, we would have never had an Abraham Lincoln or a Kentucky Fried Chicken. I'm not even sure we'd have a Donald Trump. Each and every one of us has our own unique nature with some quirks that we might pick up through nurture and some of us have a nature that completely overwhelms our ability to act out our real natures - but they do show through. It doesn't come from our parents. Some people might think it comes from God. But I believe that we've always had that nature and God knows what that nature is. But it does mean that we have God's DNA. I think you already know that's what I believe. I have no idea why you ask questions you already know the answers to.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
The thing is, a prophets role is to lead us to eternal life
I believe the prophet's role is to reveal the will of God concerning the church and the church's job is to help us prepare for the coming of Christ whether it be in this life or in the next. "Church" in this sense, I mean the people as a whole. I firmly believe that no one gets to heaven alone. There are no winners in the race. The winners are those who stay in the race and finish it still being in the race.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
Again, "Father" in Hebrew often means "Creator" (Isa. 64:8, Mal. 2:10, etc.)

And even if this called Jesus "the Father", it doesn't call Him "HIS OWN" Father.

I agree--it makes them two different Fathers.

And two different Lords:

Matthew 22:44---King James Version
44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I agree--it makes them two different Fathers.

No, it makes them the same ONE CREATOR.

And two different Lords:

Matthew 22:44---King James Version
44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

Thank you for the testimony (since you're a Mormon) that MORMONISM proclaims "two different Lords".

More evidence that Mormonism is corrupt and bankrupt.
 
Top