We can become gods?

[rameumptom]

Hemi is right. Whether you agree with the concept of premortal existence or not, this passage shows that Jews of Christ's time did believe in it. Otherwise the question would have been a stupid one to ask, with no meaning.

Christ explained that people are not cursed prior to entering this life in birth. You'll note that Jesus did not refute the concept of premortal existence, but rather explained (as LDS believe) that disabilities are given as a way to demonstrate God's power through the weaknesses of mankind.

[Old Tex]

Originally Posted by PassionForHisWord

Let me see if I understand the LDS beliefs on this topic correctly:

Human beings were born in heaven as the son or daughter of a god and goddess before they were born physically here on earth.

Being born into this life here on earth is something that we agreed to in heaven. This life serves as a test and a means of obtaining exaltation one day to godhood.

One achieves exaltation by living a life of obedience to Mormon teaching and practices. Those exalted to godhood will inhabit a planet and procreate spirit children.

A supporting quote from Brigham Young would be this: "the Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like himself...We are created to become Gods like unto our Father in heaven.” (Journal of Discourses, 3:93)


So, having that all being said (and if I'm wrong, please correct me), how does the Mormon Church interpret Isaiah 43:10?

I marvel at how far some folks go in taking a verse out of context in an effort to obscure one of the most beautiful teachings to come out of the bible. And in this case it is compounded because it's an old "standard" anti-mormon charge rather than being original with the one who posted it.

Old Tex

[chriscb]

Originally Posted by Yekcidmij

Jesus is not affirming they are gods; that grossly takes the passage out of context. He's, if anything, doing the opposite by rendering judgment on them, but I think affirming or denying their deity is not involved in the passage or a concern of the passage at all, especially since Jews didn't consider themselves to be divine.

He is not affirming that their understanding of Psalm 82, "rulers" or "judges" of the Torah, is correct either since there is a remark to "your law" that seems to draw a distinction between what Jesus was affirming and what they affirmed (kind of like, "your law, not mine").

The original context of Psalm 82 is judgment on the gods of the nations. If anything, the the oral law has misapplied that Psalm and Jesus exploits the opprotunity to defend His unique relationship to the Father and their subordination to Him. Just as Psalm 82 was a polemic against the gods of the nations, Jesus uses Psalm 82 as a polemic against those standing there due to their understanding of Psalm 82.

Hope that helps.

That was awesome!

[chriscb]

Originally Posted by rameumptom

Scripture often has both an earthly meaning and a heavenly/spiritual one. We see it here, as well.

They are talking about the divine council here. These are sons of El that are each given an earthly kingdom to rule over. Yahweh received the greatest prize: Israel. Many of them squandered their divine inheritance, using intrigue to steal the portions of others. Job 1 tells about Satan and the sons of El going to challenge Yahweh to a dual over his son, Job! This is exactly what Psalms 82 is directly going after. They were to deal well with their earthly children over whom they'd been given authority. Instead, they squandered their opportunity and many fell from their divine place. Some suggest that Isaiah 14:12-20 tells of the Babylonian king representing one of these divine sons falling from heaven as he sought to overthrow God. LDS doctrine teaches it was none other than Satan (Moses 1:4, Abraham 3:24-28). Both in the ancient writings of the divine council and in LDS scripture, we read of challenges being made to God and Jesus' role as Savior.

Funny how a young farm boy from the Northeast could figure that out when it has taken biblical scholars up until the last 25 years to begin to understand this!

How old was Joseph Smith Jr. when he "figured that out"? Joseph Smith was 24 years old when the Book of Mormon was first published. I don't think he even touched on the subject of a plurality of gods until March 20, 1839 (the early Nauvoo, Illinois period). So, I'm curious to know why you would mis-characterize JS as "a young farm boy" when clearly this is not the case.

[chriscb]

Originally Posted by Yekcidmij

Ah, I think it's a common misconception that it's refering to earthly, human judges. That is what the Jews thought (cf: m. avot and Targum Isaiah), but that's definitely not what the passage is talking about. The passage talks about divine elohim in an assembly.

Psalm 82 says: "How long will you judge unjustly, and show partiality to the wicked? Selah
3 Defend the poor and fatherless;
Do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy;
Free them from the hand of the wicked."

If God is not speaking to earthly judges, then to whom is He speaking? Angels? Why on earth would Angels be concerned with the poor and orphans? More so than a human judge?

7 But you shall die like men,
And fall like one of the princes.”

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth;
For You shall inherit all nations.

If these unjust "gods" are not human judges, then why does it say in verse 8 "Arise, O God, judge the earth;" Why judge the earth for something done in heaven?
I asked a friend of mine who speaks Hebrew (his first language) and the phrase in verse 7 is better translated "you shall die just like other men, . . ." IOW, these unjust judges, these mortal men will die like any other mortal man.

Are you familiar with James E. Talmage? In his book, Jesus the Christ, he says the same thing.

8. Divinely Appointed Judges Called "gods."—In Psalm 82:6, judges invested by divine appointment are called "gods." To this scripture the Savior referred in His reply to the Jews in Solomon's Porch. Judges so authorized officiated as the representatives of God and are honored by the exalted title "gods." Compare the similar appellation applied to Moses (Exo. 4:16; 7:1). Jesus Christ possessed divine authorization, not through the word of God transmitted to Him by man, but as an inherent attribute. The inconsistency of calling human judges "gods," and of ascribing blasphemy to the Christ who called Himself the Son of God, would have been apparent to the Jews but for their sin-darkened minds.

[teddyk]

Originally Posted by Nappaljarri

You are asking from a human perspective. The definition of God in our church does not mean proud. An omnipotent God wants to have other literal gods around him, because they are all his family.

Question: Do this family of Gods whorship their God dad ?

Please be kind to me here, I have never written or spoken the term " God dad " before, an it is real awkward.

[chriscb]

Originally Posted by teddyk

Question: Do this family of Gods whorship their God dad ?

Please be kind to me here, I have never written or spoken the term " God dad " before, an it is real awkward.

How about Abba Father?

[john doe]

How about we worship the God designated for this earth, whom we are commanded to worship, and worry about the rest later. It's mostly speculation anyway.

[teddyk]

Originally Posted by chriscb

How about Abba Father?

Do the family of Gods whorship their " Abba Father" (explain Abba)? plzz

[chriscb]

Originally Posted by teddyk

Do the family of Gods whorship their " Abba Father" (explain Abba)? plzz

You can find the phrase Abba, Father in Romans 8:15 and Galatians 4:6. Basically, it would be like calling your Father, "Dad" or "Daddy" (like a small child).