Blasphemy or Biblical?

[_gdemetz]

You never addressed the main point! Regardless, of who the scripture was about, the main point is there clearly in black and white!!! That point is that "YE ARE GODS AND ALL OF YOU ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE MOST HIGH"!!! When the Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy for making Himself out to be a God, He countered by stating that; isn't it written in your law that "YE ARE GODS"!!! You guys apparently need an English comprehension class!!

AS far as the other point goes, I do not teach anything different than Joseph Smith taught! I also say that we can become like our Heavenly Father just as he did! If you guys weren't so spiritually blind, then you could understand what Jesus was teaching them, and that was that they were gods in embryo! And if you guys were not so blind, then you could also see what this scripture means:

To him that overcometh, will I grant to sit with me on my throne (of godhood), even as I overcame and am sat down with my Father on His throne (of godhood)."

Please don't quote the Bible to me when it clearly states something that simple and then try to put such a ridiculous spin on it! I don't mean to be so rude, but I have never seen such blatant blindness on something which is written as simply and plainly as this!!!

[_Samantabhadra]

Please don't quote the Bible to me when it clearly states something that simple and then try to put such a ridiculous spin on it! I don't mean to be so rude, but I have never seen such blatant blindness on something which is written as simply and plainly as this!!!

Uhh... you're not being rude, you're being stupid. The meaning of the text is clear: the "gods" (or "divine beings") are being called gods or divine beings ironically. The Judges are called "gods," because they were appointed to act in God's name, but they are acting like feminine hygiene products: defending the unjust, showing partiality to the wicked, and so on.

You seem fairly Biblically literate so it is extremely surprising to me that you demonstrate such total unfamiliarity with the content of the Book of Judges. The Judges were, by and large, utter failures at their appointed task, and with just a small handful of exceptions they all met violent deaths because of their cruelty and wickedness.

As for John, some additional context is crucial:

30 "I and the Father are one.”

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside — 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

The reason Mormonism is blasphemous is that it attributes properties--namely, being divine--that properly only belong to Jesus/God, to ordinary human beings. Jesus is not saying here that everyone is 'gods.' Jesus is saying that He is God, or more precisely that "the Father is in [Him] and [He] in the Father." That is totally fine to say about Jesus, but it is utterly wrong and blasphemous to say about ordinary human beings, and to claim otherwise is to contradict both the Hebrew and the Christian Bibles.

Just to be clear, I have no problem with the claim that people can become mundane 'gods' or powerful local protector-spirits; they are an important class of beings in Buddhist cosmology, and Buddhist teaching openly acknowledges that certain kinds of meditative states lead directly to rebirth in one of the many, many different 'god' realms. What I have a problem with is calling this Jewish or Christian, because it is not Jewish or Christian, it is pagan as pagan comes. More broadly, the problem I have with this is that it is not a supreme result, but will only lead to more suffering; true, transcendent enlightenment(/accession into the Kingdom of Heaven) requires the total abandonment of the ego. Mormonism, as a deviant variant of Masonic occultism, is essentially a path for validating and building up your ego, and is therefore a type of Satanism, the opposite of what Jesus Christ taught.

[_Tobin]

The reason Mormonism is blasphemous is that it attributes properties--namely, being divine--that properly only belong to Jesus/God, to ordinary human beings. Jesus is not saying here that everyone is 'gods.' Jesus is saying that He is God, or more precisely that "the Father is in [Him] and [He] in the Father." That is totally fine to say about Jesus, but it is utterly wrong and blasphemous to say about ordinary human beings, and to claim otherwise is to contradict both the Hebrew and the Christian Bibles.

Just to be clear, I have no problem with the claim that people can become mundane 'gods' or powerful local protector-spirits; they are an important class of beings in Buddhist cosmology, and Buddhist teaching openly acknowledges that certain kinds of meditative states lead directly to rebirth in one of the many, many different 'god' realms. What I have a problem with is calling this Jewish or Christian, because it is not Jewish or Christian, it is pagan as pagan comes. More broadly, the problem I have with this is that it is not a supreme result, but will only lead to more suffering; true, transcendent enlightenment(/accession into the Kingdom of Heaven) requires the total abandonment of the ego. Mormonism, as a deviant variant of Masonic occultism, is essentially a path for validating and building up your ego, and is therefore a type of Satanism, the opposite of what Jesus Christ taught.

As I have said on this forum multiple times, I do not believe Mormonism teaches that man can become God. I do know that many Mormons, including prophets of the Church, have taught such things and greatly sinned in doing so. It is the height of arrogance to equate yourself with God and as you stated, blasphemous and Satanic in origin. I am unsurprised to find gdemetz preaching it as well, and falsely stating the Bible supports him in this perverse and sinful doctrine. It is simply not credible for gdemetz to pretend he could step in and do what God has done and does for us. gdemtez is basically stating he could do what Christ did which is absurd and arrogant. gdemetz is a flawed mortal, limited man and lacks any humility or awe of God and the grace by which God saves us. It is irreverent and despicable and I wish Mormons that teach such things would cease immediately, repent and admit what an awful sinful teaching this is.

[_Themis]

As I have said on this forum multiple times, I do not believe Mormonism teaches that man can become God. I do know that many Mormons, including prophets of the Church, have taught such things and greatly sinned in doing so. It is the height of arrogance to equate yourself with God and as you stated, blasphemous and Satanic in origin. I am unsurprised to find gdemetz preaching it as well, and falsely stating the Bible supports him in this perverse and sinful doctrine. It is simply not credible for gdemetz to pretend he could step in and do what God has done and does for us. gdemtez is basically stating he could do what Christ did which is absurd and arrogant. gdemetz is a flawed mortal, limited man and lacks any humility or awe of God and the grace by which God saves us. It is irreverent and despicable and I wish Mormons that teach such things would cease immediately, repent and admit what an awful sinful teaching this is.

Mormonism does teach it. It has taught it right from Joseph Smith on. You might have a different take on it, but it doesn't change the fact that the doctrine's source is Joseph Smith. You wish Mormons would repent, but then I suspect they would feel the same about you.

[_Albion]

From the perspective of one with experience inside and outside the Mormon Church it does appear to be extremely difficult to pin down Mormon theology on a number of issues. The position of "he's only a prophet when he is speaking as a prophet" is mighty puzzling and does appear to be a very handy "get out of jail free" card that is popped up whenever something difficult or "questionable" comes up. It is made even more puzzling to outsiders because they so often hear Mormons proclaiming how important it is to be led by a prophet so that his people are no longer tossed to and fro on every wind of doctrine. For a top down authoritarian system, Mormon sure seems to have turmoil in what it believes to be the fundamentals.

[_Tobin]

Mormonism does teach it. It has taught it right from Joseph Smith on. You might have a different take on it, but it doesn't change the fact that the doctrine's source is Joseph Smith. You wish Mormons would repent, but then I suspect they would feel the same about you.

Actually, Joseph Smith didn't teach any such thing. This is a misconception of many Mormons. As GBH pointed out (as have others), Joseph Smith taught God the Father was a man like Jesus Christ. Clearly, not the same thing.

[_Tobin]

From the perspective of one with experience inside and outside the Mormon Church it does appear to be extremely difficult to pin down Mormon theology on a number of issues. The position of "he's only a prophet when he is speaking as a prophet" is mighty puzzling and does appear to be a very handy "get out of jail free" card that is popped up whenever something difficult or "questionable" comes up. It is made even more puzzling to outsiders because they so often hear Mormons proclaiming how important it is to be led by a prophet so that his people are no longer tossed to and fro on every wind of doctrine. For a top down authoritarian system, Mormon sure seems to have turmoil in what it believes to be the fundamentals.

They are just misguided. And I too believe in prophets, but the important part about prophets are they are "truth" tellers. For example, two of the greatest modern-day prophets in my opinion were MLK and Gandhi.

Mormons should not rely on others to decide what is true. They should instead learn to know and trust in the Lord and his words. With a good basis in that, they would avoid much of the non-sense I have seen many of them profess. And the important part of truth is it is reasonable, stands up to scrutiny, is enlightening, and comes from God.

[_Themis]

Mormonism does teach it. It has taught it right from Joseph Smith on. You might have a different take on it, but it doesn't change the fact that the doctrine's source is Joseph Smith. You wish Mormons would repent, but then I suspect they would feel the same about you.

Actually, Joseph Smith didn't teach any such thing. This is a misconception of many Mormons. As GBH pointed out (as have others), Joseph Smith taught God the Father was a man like Jesus Christ. Clearly, not the same thing.

You might try learning some LDS teachings. Try learning about the king Follett discourse for one. GBH also never sates God was a man like Jesus was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Follett_discourse

[_Tobin]

Mormonism does teach it. It has taught it right from Joseph Smith on. You might have a different take on it, but it doesn't change the fact that the doctrine's source is Joseph Smith. You wish Mormons would repent, but then I suspect they would feel the same about you.

Actually, Joseph Smith didn't teach any such thing. This is a misconception of many Mormons. As GBH pointed out (as have others), Joseph Smith taught God the Father was a man like Jesus Christ. Clearly, not the same thing.

You might try learning some LDS teachings. Try learning about the king Follett discourse for one. GBH also never sates God was a man like Jesus was.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Follett_discourse

Just because you also completely misunderstand what he's talking about does not impress.

Q: …about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?
QBH: A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.

Why isn't it discussed or taught and denied? Because it isn't true.

When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave. This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345–346, 348; Gospel Principles, chapter 47, p. 305)

[_Themis]

Just because you also completely misunderstand what he's talking about does not impress.

I showed you the evidence. Funny you are the only one who got a different interpretation, and that includes those who were actually with Joseph smith and would know his thoughts on the matter.

Why isn't it discussed or taught and denied? Because it isn't true.

You don't show where GBH said God was a man like Jesus. That was what I CFRed. It is taught and is still part of surrent doctrine and can be found in church manuals. You may not like it but that's the facts. The church has never spent much time on it since it is not a popular subject for the main group of people the church is trying to convert.