Very stuck on this LDS doctrine

[Just_A_Guy]

Originally Posted by lattelady

The quote that PastorBob posted above from President Gordon B. Hinckley has honestly confused me. I, as a non-member can (if I want to) bring up quite a bit of information/quotes from a variety of past prophets and church leaders in reference to thoughts like:--"As man now is, God once was;..." Joseph Smith and Brigham young both taught that God was once a man (not anti-mormon jargon, just quotes from former leaders of the LDS church).
I don't understand why President Hinckley would have treated the question that way, with so many "I don't know's..."
Can anyone answer that for me?

The question asked was "Is this the teaching of the church today?" The answer is "no". If you fixate on what follows the "I don't know"s, you see President Hinckley answering the direct question, acknowledging some of the prior statements underlying the idea, and properly categorizing it as speculation.

[Re John 10:34-36 and Psalms]It absolutely answers his accusers, as He is saying (Paraphrase)--if men can be titled "gods" (as in judges and rulers), how much more should the term be allowed of the One who the Father sent--Jesus; this is understood, in this context, to those who believe Jesus is God.

I think we can agree that the Jews understood Jesus to be proclaiming Himself God. (I think we can further agree that He was right.)

I disagree with your interpretation, however; because under that interpretation verses 34-36 simply do not refute the charge of blasphemy. They basically boil down to "it's not blasphemy if the Father has indeed sanctified me and sent me to the world" (see v. 36)--and in that case, why the reference to Psalms at all? It doesn't advance the argument; it's just a rhetorical gimmick that distracts from the main issue.

If John Doe has sons Johnny, Juan, and João, and I go to the bank and invoke the name of John Doe--the names by which Johnny, Juan, and João are known have no bearing on whether I am in fact John Doe or his duly authorized agent. Referring to a previously-executed power of attorney, though, might bolster my argument a lot more.

[lattelady]

Just to go back to Psalm 82:6, if this were God speaking to men and telling them, "I said 'You are gods';" this passage makes no sense in that context. I would understand if He had said 'You will be gods' or 'You are going to be gods', but none of them, as mere mortals are walking around as gods, unless you're telling me that is what you believe about LDS member today--that they are all gods NOW. The other part that would be confusing is what He goes on to say. "I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.' But you will die like mere men;" So, are they gods, or are they men?
I believe it's because they are MEN, but not just MERE men, they are rulers, judges, authority that God has divinely appointed. And in the last half of verse 7 He says, "you will fall like every other ruler." Do gods fall?

[Just_A_Guy]

I think Psalm 82:6 is ambiguous--it certainly isn't a "proof text" in and of itself. But much of the Psalm has to do with administering justice to, and taking care of, the weak; and the idea of all of these needy individuals being gods in embryo would certainly ram home the overall point.

The Psalm is addressed to men, yes [though I think we could quibble about WHICH men 'til the cows come home]. But it is addressed (IMHO, and this is probably where we're never gong to agree) to men who have divine potential, in every sense of the word.

[lattelady]

If Psalm 82:6 is not a "proof text" for men becoming gods, then why is it used so much to bolster that view? The verse doesn't support the "idea of all these needy individuals being gods in embryo" either. Again, do gods fall from godhood? v. 7 says "But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler." The context of the chapter is so important.

[Just_A_Guy]

Originally Posted by lattelady

If Psalm 82:6 is not a "proof text" for men becoming gods, then why is it used so much to bolster that view?

I agree with you that it shouldn't be used as a proof text. But in conjunction with certain other Biblical and extra-Biblical texts, it can be used to make a case that the idea of man's attaining a degree of divinity was not as offensive to the Bible's authors as it seems to be to those who purport to follow the Bible now.

The verse doesn't support the "idea of all these needy individuals being gods in embryo" either. Again, do gods fall from godhood? v. 7 says "But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler." The context of the chapter is so important.

Even Mormons aren't trying to say that the people being addressed in the 82nd Psalm have already attained godhood and are thus immortal. Mormon theology teaches that death (and resurrection) precedes exaltation. So this argument about the reference to dying is something of a non-starter.

[lattelady]

What about "You will fall like every other ruler?" What does that mean to you?

[Just_A_Guy]

Originally Posted by lattelady

What about "You will fall like every other ruler?" What does that mean to you?

Straw man. That's language is not within the King James version of the 82nd Psalm; nor is it in the existent Hebrew manuscripts. See this (non-Mormon) lexicon.

The KJV has it as "fall like one of the princes". The idea of a righteous prince falling through iniquity would strike quite a chord in a psalm believed to have been written during the reign of King David, don't you think?

[changed]

Originally Posted by Lilac

I think this is my total sticking point.

Anyone want to take a shot at it? I brought it up to the missionaries but the conversation didn't really answer my questions. Maybe someone here who was once Protestant can help me?

In reading about the LDS, I came across these teachings. I then looked up Bible verses about God.

I'd like to join the LDS church. I really, really like you guys. But this teaching? Having trouble with it...

Most important, are these quotes accurate? Are they true LDS doctine?

As a member of the LDS church, do you see a conflict? Why or why not? (that sounded like an essay question from high school).

Thank you for your help. I do appreciate it.



Mormon Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, page 123, made by the LDS Apostle Orson Hyde:

"Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, a mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point were He is."

Lorenzo Snow, late President of the Mormon church:

"As Abra'm, Isaac, Jacob, too, babes, then men--to gods they grew. As man now is, our God once was; As now God is, so man may be,-- Which doth unfold man's destiny. . ."

Bible verses:
Numbers 23:19, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

Psalms 102:26-27, "They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end."

Isaiah 43:10-11, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour."

Isaiah 44:6, "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."

Isaiah 44:8, "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."

consider this verse:
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
(New Testament | John 5:19)

It seems that the Father has done all that the son has... and the son came into mortality and lived as a man here on earth... ponder that a bit.

There is no God beside our Heavenly Father - our Father in Heaven is a "God of gods" He rules over other gods.
17 For the LORD your God is God of gods,
(Old Testament | Deuteronomy 10:17)
God is not a "God of gods" if no other gods exist...
other Gods exist, Heavenly Father rules over them.

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
(Old Testament | Psalms 82:6)
IMO those who diminish the creation, diminish the creator.

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself bGod.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken...
(New Testament | John 10:33 - 35)



I'm excited for you that you are pondering joining the LDS church, I am a convert to the LDS church, best thing I ever did, have no regrets in joining the church. You are reading JofD? pretty heavy stuff for someone who is just getting into it, cudos to you for really researching everything.

[Maya]

Hi Lillac how are you doing? From an ex lutheran to a protestant one might say..
This got so long I will make it to a blogg.... I post the site here when it is ready... It will be on my profile too...
What do you think is important to know before you can be babtized? Before you will be babtized? Any differance in lists and why?

Maya’s Blogs » LDS Mormon Network

[clark87]

Just a quick comment on a couple of Bible scriptures that have been mentioned as supportive of the idea the there are "gods" (more than one God) spoken of in the Bible. I believe the Psalms reference has come up a couple of times (Psalm 82:6), and then one that was from Clark87: John 10:37. Clark87, you mentioned (I believe it was you...I hope I have the right name) that in John 10:37 God mentions different definitions for gods? The scripture actually reads, "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does." Maybe you typed the wrong reference?
The Psalm 82:6 is one that seems to be repeatedly taken out of context. This verse is not referring to "gods" in the sense of deities at all. If you read the whole chapter in it's context you'll understand it better. In it, the psalmist is talking about a "great assembly" in heaven that God is presiding over. And during this assembly, He's giving judgment among the "gods."
The language of the Old Testament--and in the ancient Near East--rulers and judges were sometimes given the title "god." (Even Pharoahs of Egypt were sometimes referred to this way).
God judges them for their partiality to the wicked and unjust. God puts rulers and judges in place, whether they know Him or not.
But this verse isn't talking about the reality of many gods (deities to be worshipped); you have to read it in its context.

Good catch, Lattelady, John 10:37 was indeed a typo on my part, and I meant to write John 10:34.

As for the rest, you actually got understood what I was intending to say (even though I didn't explain myself so well). My main point is that most of this "multiple god" stuff is speculation. We have very few scriptures out there on "other gods", and what few scriptures that are even out there about "gods" aren't talking about other gods like God our Heavenly Father. It seems those that used "gods" often had different intended definitions for that word.

I don't understand why President Hinckley would have treated the question that way, with so many "I don't know's..."

I've noticed that all through the bible, different prophets had different strengths and weaknesses. Some knew more about miracles, some knew more about events leading to Christ's second coming, and some knew about events and prophets of the past. God would teach each prophet what they needed to take care of the people.

When Gordon B. Hinkley became prophet, he wasn't immediately given every bit of knowledge previous prophets knew. During that quote, he was being honest in that he didn't know much about the subject, nor did he know what the context of the quote was. Moreover, he probably didn't care to know. It's an obscure, unnecessary doctrine (in the way of salvation), made up mostly of speculation. There are a lot of other subjects with far greater importance.

The "doctrines" of "God being a man" and "multiple gods" are simply a handful of quotes that we milk for information that simply isn't there. We really don't know the context of half the quotes, or even if they were quoted correctly. Even if every quote was true, then we still would have a pitiful amount of knowledge on the subject.