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

brotherofJared

Well-known member
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?
You are aware that you're adding "of the first century" to the scriptures, aren't you? That's not there. foundations always have to be reinforced, rebuilt, and added to with new techniques that provide a firmer foundation. Foundations fail. They need to be renewed and maintained just like everything else man makes.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Is the church built on FALSE living prophets and FALSE living apostles?
Any church not built on a foundation of prophets and apostles as was the church Christ formed, is not Christ's church.

The context of 2 Cor 11 is this: "I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.​

What did Paul teach? Did he not teach that in the church there are first apostles and second prophets? If you don't have prophets and apostles, then you have accepted a different gospel from the one that Paul taught.
Are living apostles that teach lies and false doctrines TRUE apostles?
How would you know if you were taught lies or false doctrines since you don't have any apostles or prophets and obviously have a different gospel?

One thing is for sure, there is only one true gospel and only one set of true apostles. I would suggest that the gospel that is true would have apostles and prophets. Your opinion about truth or lies is irrelevant since you are arguing from a place without foundations. ;)
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
That is not our doctrine. :rolleyes:
It never has been.
2. Jesus and Satan are actual brothers in the supposed, pre-mortal existence
That is what the Bible teaches.
Jesus is the firstborn, is he not? If that is the case, the everyone else born of the Father, regardless of whether it's literal or figurative, is a brother or sister of the firstborn. Jesus himself confirmed that we are related with him to the Father. It would seem that the only way to escape that relationship of being brothers with Christ is if Satan was someone else's son who isn't related to God. But we know that can't be possible, right?

This is simple logic, Bonnie. Your refusal to see it doesn't eliminate the logic.

3. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate Gods.
That is what the apostles taught. It would seem that your foundation really has been dug up and thrown out, seeing as you all don't have the gospel that Paul taught.
Can the true church be built upon such folk that teach blasphemies like this?
What is blaspheme to a false church may not be blaspheme to the true church.
Where does the NT say the church MUST have living apostles and living prophets in order for a church to be true?
Whether it's true or not is not a question. There can't even be a church, according to Paul without apostles and prophets.

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;
 

Bonnie

Super Member
You are aware that you're adding "of the first century" to the scriptures, aren't you? That's not there. foundations always have to be reinforced, rebuilt, and added to with new techniques that provide a firmer foundation. Foundations fail. They need to be renewed and maintained just like everything else man makes.
The NT was written in the first century, during the lifetime of many who were eye witnesses of Jesus Christ. That isn't "adding" to anything, but just a statement of fact.

Foundations fail? NOT when Jesus Christ Himself founds it! Not when it is built upon HIM! Did He not say that the "gates of hell" would NOT prevail against His church?
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Any church not built on a foundation of prophets and apostles as was the church Christ formed, is not Christ's church.

The context of 2 Cor 11 is this: "I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.​

What did Paul teach? Did he not teach that in the church there are first apostles and second prophets? If you don't have prophets and apostles, then you have accepted a different gospel from the one that Paul taught.

How would you know if you were taught lies or false doctrines since you don't have any apostles or prophets and obviously have a different gospel?

One thing is for sure, there is only one true gospel and only one set of true apostles. I would suggest that the gospel that is true would have apostles and prophets. Your opinion about truth or lies is irrelevant since you are arguing from a place without foundations. ;)

That is not our doctrine. :rolleyes:
It never has been.

That is what the Bible teaches.
Jesus is the firstborn, is he not? If that is the case, the everyone else born of the Father, regardless of whether it's literal or figurative, is a brother or sister of the firstborn. Jesus himself confirmed that we are related with him to the Father. It would seem that the only way to escape that relationship of being brothers with Christ is if Satan was someone else's son who isn't related to God. But we know that can't be possible, right?

This is simple logic, Bonnie. Your refusal to see it doesn't eliminate the logic.


That is what the apostles taught. It would seem that your foundation really has been dug up and thrown out, seeing as you all don't have the gospel that Paul taught.

What is blaspheme to a false church may not be blaspheme to the true church.

Whether it's true or not is not a question. There can't even be a church, according to Paul without apostles and prophets.

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;
a church built on lying false prophets and false apostles like those in Mormonism is not Christ's true church. Their church is built on lies--who is the father of lies, BoJ?
 
Last edited:

dberrie2020

Well-known member
No, it makes them the same ONE CREATOR.
Specifically--where does the term "creator" appear in that verse?

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

Jesus--as "The everlasting Father".

So--is that a different Father than His God and Father?

1 Peter 1:3---King James Version (KJV)
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

John 20:17---King James Version (KJV)
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Ephesians 1:17---King James Version (KJV)

17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Hebrews 1:9---King James Version (KJV)
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Thank you for the testimony (since you're a Mormon) that MORMONISM proclaims "two different Lords".

More evidence that Mormonism is corrupt and bankrupt.
So--does that mean you believe the Bible is "corrupt and bankrupt"--or that the Bible is just more "Mormonism"?

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?
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
Because Jesus doesn't need any help.
And yet--Jesus built the foundation upon His living, mortal apostles and prophets:

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;
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Specifically--where does the term "creator" appear in that verse?

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

You have gone on record here in the past and admitted that you are only here to "play games" and "have fun". I think this is a great example.

When people say that "George Washington is the Father of our country", do you imagine that the 13 colonies came out of Martha's birth canal?!

When people say, "It's raining cats and dogs", do you expect actual pets to be falling out of the sky?

Give me a break...

Jesus--as "The everlasting Father".
So--is that a different Father than His God and Father?

Yes, the term "Father" (English), "Pater" (Greek), "abba" (Hebrew/Aramaic), have DIFFERENT meanings and connotations, just like most words. I hate to break it to you, but it's true. That's why most words have multiple definition entries in comprehensive dictionaries.



So--does that mean you believe the Bible is "corrupt and bankrupt"--or that the Bible is just more "Mormonism"?

<sigh>

Nope. Never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Any church not built on a foundation of prophets and apostles as was the church Christ formed, is not Christ's church.

The context of 2 Cor 11 is this: "I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.​

Reread what Paul wrote. What is NOT Christ's church is one that proclaims a different Jesus and a different Gospel, and has a different spirit. YOUR Jesus is Satan's brother, (!) the firstborn spirit child of flesh and blood HF and HM. YOUR church's gospel has three levels of heaven and who goes where after death and teaches that men can evolve into a god in the highest level by doing Temple works and covenants--just as their HF did--and become creators of worlds and populate them with their own spirit children. This gospel is not only NO gospel at all but differs VIOLENTLY from what Paul preached! But the god of this world has blinded them to the truth.
What did Paul teach? Did he not teach that in the church there are first apostles and second prophets? If you don't have prophets and apostles, then you have accepted a different gospel from the one that Paul taught.

Paul was talking about the various church workers, and how different people have different talents in church. They have nothing to do with what is the actual Gospel of the actual Jesus Christ of the Bible, whom Paul preached. It is what is taught ABOUT Jesus Christ and the atonement that is the Gospel message--not the type of church workers the church has.
How would you know if you were taught lies or false doctrines since you don't have any apostles or prophets and obviously have a different gospel?

Good grief! We have God's holy word, the BIBLE so we can "test the spirits" and use it as the litmus test for true teachings--you know, what the TRUE prophets and TRUE apostles in the Bible have written down for us what the HS Inspired them to write.
One thing is for sure, there is only one true gospel and only one set of true apostles. I would suggest that the gospel that is true would have apostles and prophets. Your opinion about truth or lies is irrelevant since you are arguing from a place without foundations. ;)
One thing for sure: the true gospel is NOT found in the LDS Church and all its apostles are false ones, who teach lies.
That is not our doctrine. :rolleyes:
It never has been.

Yes it is. Read the KFD. Smith said that we had supposed that God was always God but he would dispute that idea and show it from the Bible--but he never did. He said that God was once a man on "an earth", and that we have "got to learn how to become gods" ourselves, as ALL OTHER GODS BEFORE US HAD DONE (slightly paraphrasing). Which certainly implies that your God had to learn how to become a god, since HE was before US--wasn't he? And aren't exalted men supposed to have all that our god has, and be able to do all that he does? Create worlds? Populate them with his own spirit progeny, as YOUR god supposedly did on this earth?

And doesn't the Snow couplet say that God was once as we are NOW? Mortal? Well, if WE have got to learn how to become gods, then that means YOUR god had to learn how, as well--else, how did HE become God? Since he was once a man on "an earth" and not always God?
That is what the Bible teaches.
Jesus is the firstborn, is he not? If that is the case, the everyone else born of the Father, regardless of whether it's literal or figurative, is a brother or sister of the firstborn. Jesus himself confirmed that we are related with him to the Father. It would seem that the only way to escape that relationship of being brothers with Christ is if Satan was someone else's son who isn't related to God. But we know that can't be possible, right?

Where does the Bible say that Jesus is the firstborn SPIRIT son of HF and HM, and Satan's actual brother? "Firstborn" has a figurative meaning--first in pre-eminence. Depends upon that ol' bugaboo of Mormonism--context.
This is simple logic, Bonnie. Your refusal to see it doesn't eliminate the logic.

We are Christ's brothers and sisters by being adopted TO the Father THROUGH Jesus Christ, when we have faith in Him for salvation, great and free. That is biblical.
That is what the apostles taught. It would seem that your foundation really has been dug up and thrown out, seeing as you all don't have the gospel that Paul taught.

No, what Mormonism does not in the least resemble is what the TRUE Apostles taught.
What is blaspheme to a false church may not be blaspheme to the true church.

Blasphemy by any other name would be just as rotten. And that is mostly what is found in Mormon teachings. There is a little of truth in some of them, but then, Satan likes to mix in just enough truth with his lies, to make his lies seem more plausible, so people will swallow his lies--to their eternal spiritual detriment! It is sugar-coated spiritual poison.
Whether it's true or not is not a question. There can't even be a church, according to Paul without apostles and prophets.
Ephs. 4, NIV:
7 But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8 This is why it says:

“When he ascended on high,
he took many captives
and gave gifts to his people.”

9 (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? 10 He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Now, suppose you show us where Paul says here that the mark of a true church is having apostles and prophets. Show us.
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;
What else has Paul written about this? Remember this:

1 Corinthians 3:8-11​

English Standard Version​

8 He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. 9 For we are God's fellow workers. You are God's field, God's building.
10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. 11 For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

WHO is the ultimate foundation that Paul and other apostles have built upon?
 
Last edited:

Bonnie

Super Member
You have gone on record here in the past and admitted that you are only here to "play games" and "have fun". I think this is a great example.

When people say that "George Washington is the Father of our country", do you imagine that the 13 colonies came out of Martha's birth canal?!

When people say, "It's raining cats and dogs", do you expect actual pets to be falling out of the sky?

Give me a break...

Jesus--as "The everlasting Father".


Yes, the term "Father" (English), "Pater" (Greek), "abba" (Hebrew/Aramaic), have DIFFERENT meanings and connotations, just like most words. I hate to break it to you, but it's true. That's why most words have multiple definition entries in comprehensive dictionaries.





<sigh>

Nope. Never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Also "everlasting Father" is not a very good translation. It is more accurately "Father of eternity". The word translated as "everlasting" is actually a noun, not an adjective. So Dr. Luginbill told me, when I asked him about it some years ago. I also quoted someplace on here what he wrote to me about this. A book we used to have by a British Scholar in Hebrew also wrote much the same thing in his commentary on Isaiah. Since these verses are about the Messiah, then "Father"--i.e., originator--"of eternity" must refer to the fact that we have eternal life in the Messiah by faith in Him.

I found it:

Hebrew 'abhi 'adh (אֲבִי עַד) is a construct phrase, that is "X of Y". Hebrew is replete with these phrases, and translating them correctly is probably half the problem in producing a good rendition of any lengthy OT passage, especially in poetry. In English, we have limited the way we use our default genitive "of"; so for example we now avoid objective / subjective genitives on account of the possibility of confusion. "The price of the senator": does it mean "the price the senator has to pay" or "the price to buy the senator's help"? There are many more possible genitive relationships in Greek and Latin, and they are even more frequent in Hebrew since Hebrew lacks the extensive case system of those two languages and uses the construct to make up for it (at least that is one way to look at it).

I take the word "father" here in semi-verbal sense as in "the one fathering", and "eternity" as the essential direct object. This sort of thing is common enough in Hebrew. The point is, there is a relationship between the two nouns and "eternal father" and "one fathering eternity" cannot both be correct. Since these verses are taking about the Messiah, it's not the former. Also, 'adh (עַד) is a NOUN, not an adjective, AND "father" comes first, not second. So my version is far closer to being literal.

but ah...the games some people play, to keep from having to face truth of what we write and what the Bible actually teaches--they must willfully blind themselves to the truth, because if they did not, they would be forced to face the fact that they have not only wasted hundreds of hours serving a false church, but donated thousands upon thousands of dollars to a false church that has led them astray from the true Jesus Christ of the bible.
 
Last edited:

Theo1689

Well-known member
Reread what Paul wrote. What is NOT Christ's church is one that proclaims a different Jesus and a different Gospel, and has a different spirit. YOUR Jesus is Satan's brother, (!) the firstborn spirit child of flesh and blood HF and HM. YOUR church's gospel has three levels of heaven and who goes where after death and teaches that men can evolve into a god in the highest level by doing Temple works and covenants--just as their HF did--and become creators of worlds and populate them with their own spirit children. This gospel is not only NO gospel at all but differs VIOLENTLY from what Paul preached! But the god of this world has blinded them to the truth.

It's truly amazing to me how dizzying and fallacious the Mormon argument is, when they try to defend their bankrupt beliefs.

First of all, they try to defend their false belief in "plural gods". And when you look at the TONS of passages that actually ADDRESS that issue (the vast majority of them DENYING "plural gods", they demand that the issue centre on the arbitrary citation of "Ps. 82:6". Why there? That is certainly NOT the first passage on the issue one finds when they read the Bible. Why there? Because it is self-serving to Mormonism.

Then we have "if you church proclaims a different Jesus". And what exactly defines whether your church proclaims a "different Jesus"?

Is it the denial of plural gods? Nope.
Is it the denial of polygamy? Nope.
Is it the denial of faith alone? Nope.
Is it the denial of marriage ending at death? Nope.

For some BIZARRE reason, whether one proclaims "a different Jesus" is arbitrarily and self-servingly determined by whether "your church continues to replace Jesus' original prophets and apostles with your church's own false prophet and apostles.

It looks like I'll end up posting all of Dr. White's responses to the original "17 Points of the One, True Church" tract, but for now, here's the one on "prophets and apostles":

#3. The true church must have a foundation of Apostles and Prophets. Ephesians 2:19-20. This, again, is true, as far as it goes. Unfortunately, the LDS Church takes it too far. The Mormons take this to mean that the true church must have official positions entitled “Apostle” and “Prophet,” which, of course, they have. This is not what Ephesians 2:19-20 teaches. First, the context includes verses 21 and 22, and these must be read also. The text actually says that the church is built on a foundation. Stop there. The word “built” as translated in the King James Version translates the Greek participle epoikodomethentes, which, properly syntaxed is translated “having been built.” It is an aorist passive participle. It refers to a past action, one that (in this case) has been completed. To say that today we must continue to build the foundation of apostles and prophets is to misunderstand the text. Next, we would like to point out that the Bible identifies Jesus Christ as the foundation (1 Corinthians 3:10-11). The Church is built upon this foundation, and is continually growing unto an “holy temple in the Lord.” The question must be asked, how many times does one lay a foundation? If one is continually laying a foundation, how will the house be built? The answer is obvious. The Mormon Church is still trying to lay a foundation that was laid two thousand years ago. Since this is so, it is obvious to see that in this passage Paul is referring to something other than a continuing office of apostle and Prophet.

The phrase “of the apostles and prophets” is in a genitive construction that can easily give the sense that the foundation of the apostles and prophets is Jesus Christ Himself. This would be completely consistent with Paul’s use of themelios (foundation) in other letters. Again we see how examining the actual text of the Bible we can avoid errors such as the kind propagated by the Mormon Church.

One final thing. In the lists of “offices” in the church (e.g., 1 Corinthians 12:28), the apostles” are placed before the “prophets.” Aside from the fact that there were obviously many “prophets” in the Church (rather than the one of the LDS Church), it is clear that the Mormon hierarchy of Prophet then Apostles is backwards, at least Biblically speaking. It is also plain to see that “apostles” (literally, “sent ones”) and “prophets” functioned quite differently than the LDS Church believes they did.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Just to have a little
You have gone on record here in the past and admitted that you are only here to "play games" and "have fun". I think this is a great example.

When people say that "George Washington is the Father of our country", do you imagine that the 13 colonies came out of Martha's birth canal?!

When people say, "It's raining cats and dogs", do you expect actual pets to be falling out of the sky?

Give me a break...

Jesus--as "The everlasting Father".


Yes, the term "Father" (English), "Pater" (Greek), "abba" (Hebrew/Aramaic), have DIFFERENT meanings and connotations, just like most words. I hate to break it to you, but it's true. That's why most words have multiple definition entries in comprehensive dictionaries.





<sigh>

Nope. Never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth.


It was just to have some fun, and not take anything on here too seriously. Which seems to me could include not taking our well-thought out responses seriously, making them a source of amusement. I.E. game playing.

But it is certainly playing games with us when Mormon posters display debate tactics 1-5 in my signature--wouldn't you say?
 
Last edited:

dberrie2020

Well-known member
Which would include not taking our well-thought out responses seriously, making them a source of amusement. I.E. game playing.
Cite, please. Never made any such claim.

What I did mean by "taking things too seriously"--was a reference to taking any post as a personal affront--not to taking "well-thought out responses seriously,".

Where does anyone find any claim of mine such as that which you claim above?

In fact--that is a tailored fabrication.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Cite, please. Never made any such claim.

What I did mean by "taking things too seriously"--was a reference to taking any post as a personal affront--not to taking "well-thought out responses seriously,".

Where does anyone find any claim of mine such as that which you claim above?

In fact--that is a tailored fabrication. The way our well-thought out responses, Bible verses, and points are ignored--and our answers are ignored as if we had not answered the questions given--show that our responses are NOT taken seriously at all--doesn't it? That is the conclusion we inevitably come to--isn't it?

I agree, you did not say you were here to "play games" though that WAS the impression we non-Mormons got--but I remember other statements about the reasons for being on here, because I archived that post on here a year ago. It was about having a little fun, and not taking "this too seriously"--and "this" COULD include our answers, responses, Bible verses, etc, right? --and not holding a grudge and not taking anything personally....four separate things, not two..

Does this ring a bell, perhaps?
 
Last edited:

dberrie2020

Well-known member
I agree, you did not say you were here to "play games" though that WAS the impression we non-Mormons got--

I can't argue what impression anyone got--but I never made that comment--and I never made any comment I didn't take your "well-thought out responses seriously". That just isn't true.

but I remember other statements about the reasons for being on here, because I archived that post on here a year ago. It was about having a little fun, and not taking "this too seriously"--and "this" would include our answers, responses, Bible verses, etc, right?

Wrong. And neither do you have anything archived where I stated any such thing. That's a fabricated accusation, which has no basis in truth.

As I already stated--the point of my not taking things too seriously was directed at the affront from the posts--not the content.

What right do you have in accusing me--when you haven't even asked me for an explanation of what I meant?
 
Top