Mormonism: Become a god/godess ???

[Starman3000m]

Teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) :

(excerpt)

“The final part of the plan of salvation is the designation of souls into three kingdoms, or degrees, of glory. Mormons believe this will occur at what is known universally as “judgment day.” Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ will preside, and we will be judged according to our desires and deeds during our mortal life and finally sent to one of three kingdoms: the Celestial, the Terrestrial, and the Telestial. The Celestial kingdom is the highest and most glorious of all the kingdoms, and it is where we may live eternally with our families and with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. Mormonism also teaches that each husband and wife—each celestial companionship—will gain the opportunity to have spirit children and create worlds of their own. This is known in Mormon theology as exaltation, and it is the ultimate goal in the plan of salvation. The state of being gods and goddesses—eternal parents—brings joy and happiness that last forever.”

Great Info about Mormons and Mormonsim

Hmmm... this may be what the LDS teaches but it is certainly not what the Holy Bible teaches. Yes, people have free will to believe what they wish - but eternity is a long time to spend having made the wrong choice.

 

[mAlice]

- but eternity is a long time to spend having made the wrong choice.

What makes you so sure your choice is the right one?

 

[libby]

Teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) :

(excerpt)

“The final part of the plan of salvation is the designation of souls into three kingdoms, or degrees, of glory. Mormons believe this will occur at what is known universally as “judgment day.” Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ will preside, and we will be judged according to our desires and deeds during our mortal life and finally sent to one of three kingdoms: the Celestial, the Terrestrial, and the Telestial. The Celestial kingdom is the highest and most glorious of all the kingdoms, and it is where we may live eternally with our families and with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. Mormonism also teaches that each husband and wife—each celestial companionship—will gain the opportunity to have spirit children and create worlds of their own. This is known in Mormon theology as exaltation, and it is the ultimate goal in the plan of salvation. The state of being gods and goddesses—eternal parents—brings joy and happiness that last forever.”

Great Info about Mormons and Mormonsim

Hmmm... this may be what the LDS teaches but it is certainly not what the Holy Bible teaches. Yes, people have free will to believe what they wish - but eternity is a long time to spend having made the wrong choice.

That is their interpretation of what the Holy Bible teaches. You have no grounds for telling them otherwise because you personally interpret, too. What's good for the goose...

 

[Starman3000m]

That is their interpretation of what the Holy Bible teaches. You have no grounds for telling them otherwise because you personally interpret, too. What's good for the goose...

So, libby, in your point of view, it is OK for Mormons to claim that the pope is a false prophet, and that their current 16th prophet, Thomas S. Monson is the "revelator" of God's truth.

Thomas S. Monson: 16th LDS President: This Prophet, Seer, and Revelator Became President Early in 2008

OK - But all that shows is that you must not have that much faith that your pope is the "true religious leader" of Christianity" as Mormons claim for their spiritual leader.

The Holy Bible states that all believers in Jesus Christ are to spread the Good News of Salvation through Him alone; not salvation through the religious works, traditions, rituals and denominations of men.

 

[Starman3000m]

What makes you so sure your choice is the right one?

The assurance of Faith in the True Jesus as written in the Holy Bible - not belief in the "counterfeit Jesus" that all other pseudo-Christian cults claim to believe in.

 

[libby]

So, libby, in your point of view, it is OK for Mormons to claim that the pope is a false prophet, and that their current 16th prophet, Thomas S. Monson is the "revelator" of God's truth.

Thomas S. Monson: 16th LDS President: This Prophet, Seer, and Revelator Became President Early in 2008

OK - But all that shows is that you must not have that much faith that your pope is the "true religious leader" of Christianity" as Mormons claim for their spiritual leader.

The Holy Bible states that all believers in Jesus Christ are to spread the Good News of Salvation through Him alone; not salvation through the religious works, traditions, rituals and denominations of men.

Nope, one thing has nothing to do with the other. What you and IT fail to realize is that I am trying to make a larger theological and historical point. If you go through your history of Christianity, you will find overwhelming evidence that what-is-now-called the "Catholic Church" was all there was in Christendom, excepting a few heretical fringes. When Martin Luther et al broke away and encouraged personal interpretation, he and the "movement" opened the floodgates for LDS, JW and the myriad other denominations.
I've asked before on this forum and others. Find me something to prove that there was a "denomination" (for lack of a better word) called "Bible Christians" prior to 1200 or so. If they existed as the true church, surely there are writings and records of their challenges to the abusive Catholic Church. Surely there are records of their travels throughout the world. There have to have been some people writing about the "Bible alone" being the way to salvation as the Catholic Church grew and led people down their diabolical road. Cite some of these writings, please.
Don't bother telling me about the abuses of priests, popes, etc. Get a grip on what "infallibility" really means so we can have a meaningful dialogue.
You and IT are mere men, too, so you could very well be the ones making mistakes with Scripture. You both fail to see the entire story from OT prophecy to NT fulfillment. You claim a literal interpretation until that interpretation becomes inconvenient for you. Scripture is literal, figurative, allegorical and prophetic. The OT foreshadowed the Kingdom of God being ushered in by Our Lord, Jesus Christ.
I've said it a hundred times, especially to IT. You both claim the charism that you consider such blasphemy, infallibility. You make yourselves popes with your notion that you cannot be mistaken because blah, blah, blah...
Gosh, I could go on.

 

[Starman3000m]

Nope, one thing has nothing to do with the other. What you and IT fail to realize is that I am trying to make a larger theological and historical point. If you go through your history of Christianity, you will find overwhelming evidence that what-is-now-called the "Catholic Church" was all there was in Christendom, excepting a few heretical fringes. When Martin Luther et al broke away and encouraged personal interpretation, he and the "movement" opened the floodgates for LDS, JW and the myriad other denominations.
I've asked before on this forum and others. Find me something to prove that there was a "denomination" (for lack of a better word) called "Bible Christians" prior to 1200 or so. If they existed as the true church, surely there are writings and records of their challenges to the abusive Catholic Church. Surely there are records of their travels throughout the world. There have to have been some people writing about the "Bible alone" being the way to salvation as the Catholic Church grew and led people down their diabolical road. Cite some of these writings, please.
Don't bother telling me about the abuses of priests, popes, etc. Get a grip on what "infallibility" really means so we can have a meaningful dialogue.
You and IT are mere men, too, so you could very well be the ones making mistakes with Scripture. You both fail to see the entire story from OT prophecy to NT fulfillment. You claim a literal interpretation until that interpretation becomes inconvenient for you. Scripture is literal, figurative, allegorical and prophetic. The OT foreshadowed the Kingdom of God being ushered in by Our Lord, Jesus Christ.
I've said it a hundred times, especially to IT. You both claim the charism that you consider such blasphemy, infallibility. You make yourselves popes with your notion that you cannot be mistaken because blah, blah, blah...
Gosh, I could go on.

libby, just please take the time to read the New Testament writings of the Apostles on your own and asking for the prayerful guidance of God's Holy Spirit.

It is the contextual writings that refute the denominational theology that Rome teaches and claimed as having being given the exclusive right of "interpretation" through the papacy.

The 1st century writings of the New Testament are letters written by the Apostles to the churches and new followers of Christ warning them about what you are trying to defend.

Rome, an enemy of the Jews and enemy of the 1st-century Christians at that time, saw an advantage to usurping the early Christian movement that was literally converting thousands of people. Rome replaced its pagan gods with "patron saints" and this made it palatable as a replacement that people could believe was representative of the Christian faith. The choice of forced conversions or beheadings came later for those who would not accept the papacy as the head of the church on earth.

Sorry, but the Truth is the Truth.

 

[libby]

libby, just please take the time to read the New Testament writings of the Apostles on your own and asking for the prayerful guidance of God's Holy Spirit.

It is the contextual writings that refute the denominational theology that Rome teaches and claimed as having being given the exclusive right of "interpretation" through the papacy.

The 1st century writings of the New Testament are letters written by the Apostles to the churches and new followers of Christ warning them about what you are trying to defend.

Rome, an enemy of the Jews and enemy of the 1st-century Christians at that time, saw an advantage to usurping the early Christian movement that was literally converting thousands of people. Rome replaced its pagan gods with "patron saints" and this made it palatable as a replacement that people could believe was representative of the Christian faith. The choice of forced conversions or beheadings came later for those who would not accept the papacy as the head of the church on earth.

Sorry, but the Truth is the Truth.

I will repeat my request. Find me some evidence of early Christians that were not "Catholic". What I mean by that is someone, somewhere, refuting the (alleged) heresies of Rome.

 

[mAlice]

The assurance of Faith in the True Jesus as written in the Holy Bible - not belief in the "counterfeit Jesus" that all other pseudo-Christian cults claim to believe in.

That's what the others say about your belief, so who am I to believe?

 

[Starman3000m]

I will repeat my request. Find me some evidence of early Christians that were not "Catholic". What I mean by that is someone, somewhere, refuting the (alleged) heresies of Rome.

I will repeat my request to you libby. Read the New Testament for yourself and ask the guidance of God's Holy Spirit to help you see the heresies.

- Did the Apostles of Christ force people to convert to the faith? No, they were the ones who were persecuted by Rome as well as Orthodox Jewish leaders; As you know, Paul was actually one of the Jewish Orthodox persecutors against first-century believers before his conversion.

- When Jesus resurrected and ordained His Disciples to preach the Gospel unto all parts of the earth did He tell them to persecute, expel or kill any person who did not accept their authority? That's what the Vatican did - with the pope's authorization!

The very first Christians were all Jewish. They continued the teaching of only One God and the fulfillment of Yeshua (Jesus) as being the prophesied Messiah and the only one through which there is Salvation from God through faith in the Atoning Blood of Christ. There was no heirarchy or official "seat" established to be the center of faith because that already belonged to Jerusalem, where Jesus will return to reign from during the Millennial Kingdom of God on this earth.

The truth is: Rome came along and claimed that "Peter" was the first pope and that the Gospel was entrusted exclusively to him and his predecessors. Meanwhile, the Holy Bible states that Paul was given that assignment as much as it was given to all other Apostles who Jesus sent to spread His Message to the uttermost parts of the earth.

Paul's ministry:

Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
(Acts 20:21)

Paul's letter to the Romans:
Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God,
That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. (Romans 15:15-16)

Paul's Assignment, same message as other Apostles:

For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
(1 Corinthians 15:9-11)

 

[Starman3000m]

That's what the others say about your belief, so who am I to believe?

Simple: Read and believe what the New Testament Accounts in the Holy Bible declare about Jesus.

BTW: I have never heard any of them (RCC, Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses) ever say that the Jesus of the New Testament is a counterfeit. However, they all claim that the "Jesus" of their doctrine is the same one as the New Testament account in the Holy Bible which (with me now out of the picture here) cannot be true because even the Jesus of their own doctrines conflict with one another in description.

I have given examples on earlier threads about the RCC Jesus and the Mormon Jesus as compared to the Holy Bible and specifically show that they are not the same. However, since we are discussing Mormonism in this thread, here are excerpts of Mormon doctrine with the link provided to begin your own research about which Jesus is the True Jesus and which is the counterfeit:

Mormon Jesus was not born of a virgin:

In a sermon dated July 8, 1860, Brigham Young stated his position: "The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood – was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, p. 115)

Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie described the act that took place between God the Father and Mary in similar terms: "Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers." (Mormon Doctrine, 1979 edition, p. 547)

The Mormon Jesus had many wives:

Mormon Apostle Orson Hyde publicly stated that, "...Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 210)

The Atoning Blood of the Mormon Jesus is not enough to cleanse the sins of mankind:

On another occasion, Brigham Young claimed, "There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 247)

The Mormon Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers:

The fear of blasphemy, however, did not seem to affect Brigham Young. In his discourse of October 30, 1870, Young says, "'Who will redeem the earth, who will go forth and make the sacrifice for the earth and all things it contains?' The eldest son said: 'Here am I;' but he did not say 'send me.' But the second one, which was 'Lucifer, son of the morning,' said, 'Lord, here am I, send me, I will redeem every son and daughter of Adam and Eve that lives on the earth, '" (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 282)

Milton R. Hunter confirms this doctrine: "The appointment of Jesus to be Savior of the world was contested by one of the other sons of God. He was called Lucifer,...this spirit-brother of Jesus desperately tried to become the Savior of mankind." (The Gospel Through the Ages, 1945, p. 15)

Mormon Jesus by Sword of the Spirit Apologetics

The author ends with the following:

CONCLUSION (sent to me by a good friend)
"The characteristics, the attributes, the history, and the redemptive work of the 'jesus' you choose must be in accord with the Jesus of the Bible or you have chosen the wrong 'jesus.' The true Jesus is the One whose physical death, alone, upon the cross, fully atoned for the sins of mankind. Choose this Jesus and you have chosen THE Saviour, you have chosen God. Choose any other, however much he might resemble the true Jesus, and you have chosen a satanic counterfeit who will lead you to an eternal hell."
source:
(Moreno Dal Bello, WHICH JESUS?, Global Good News, Global Good News looks at life)

 

[libby]

they all claim that the "Jesus" of their doctrine is the same one as the New Testament account in the Holy Bible which (with me now out of the picture here) cannot be true because even the Jesus of their own doctrines conflict with one another in description.

Give me an example of who the RCC says Jesus is, and how it conflicts with Scriptures.

 

[Starman3000m]

Give me an example of who the RCC says Jesus is, and how it conflicts with Scriptures.

Hi libby,
Your question actually requires response on a separate thread as this thread is actually to discuss Mormonism. So, look for the new thread: The Catholic "Jesus"

 

[MMDad]

The Atoning Blood of the Mormon Jesus is not enough to cleanse the sins of mankind:

On another occasion, Brigham Young claimed, "There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 247)

As usual, you are preaching the religion of Starman, not the Bible:

Mark 3:28-29 (King James Version)

28Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

29But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

Make a covenenant (that's a promise for you weak minded holier than thou types), then break that covenant and it will not be forgiven.

You know, Starman, if you are going to get on here telling everyone how wrong everyone except you is, you should really learn just a little bit about what is actually in the book that you pretend to have read.

Your arrogance is only eclipsed by your ignorance.

 

[Starman3000m]

As usual, you are preaching the religion of Starman, not the Bible:

Mark 3:28-29 (King James Version)

28Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

29But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

Make a covenenant (that's a promise for you weak minded holier than thou types), then break that covenant and it will not be forgiven.

You know, Starman, if you are going to get on here telling everyone how wrong everyone except you is, you should really learn just a little bit about what is actually in the book that you pretend to have read.

Your arrogance is only eclipsed by your ignorance.

Yo, MMDad, Please read Mark 3:29-30 very carefully.

Was it not you who accused ItalianScallion of having actions that are “satanic”.

From the “Wish Mormons would stop coming by” thread.

I injected some doubt into their minds (as the devil did in the Garden).

[Quote="MMDad”] It's good to see that you are now admitting that your actions are satanic.[/QUOTE]

If ItalianScallion’s answers and mine are Truth from the Holy Bible which is inspired by the Holy Ghost, your comments are the ones considered blasphemy. You are hereby denying the Truth of God as revealed through the Holy Spirit of God in reference to counterfeit religions.

The Truth of Jesus is revealed by the Holy Spirit of God to those who seek Truth. You, sir, are not mocking us at all with your rude remarks; you are mocking the Truth that God wants mankind to know about Salvation through His Son alone and not through false religious teachings. If you claim that we are preaching our own doctrine and believe that our actions are "satanic" you are to be made aware that your own actions and comments are scoffing against the Holy Spirit of God:

But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit. (Mark 3:29-30)

 

[MMDad]

If ItalianScallion’s answers and mine are Truth

No, they aren't truth, they are your twisted interpretations of simple concepts. Kind of like the Muslims who use the Koran to justify killing children.


Now you say that I am at risk of being damned, yet your earlier post ridiculed the Mormon belief that there is a sin that cannot be forgiven. There is no difference.

Which is it? Are the Mormons right, you were wrong before, and you are now right since you have changed your mind?

Or are the Mormons wrong, you were right to ridicule them, but now you are wrong since you now agree with them?

The bottom line is that you are arrogant and ignorant. You obviously choose not to understand what you pretend to read. Pathetic.

 

[Starman3000m]

No, they aren't truth, they are your twisted interpretations of simple concepts. Kind of like the Muslims who use the Koran to justify killing children.


Now you say that I am at risk of being damned, yet your earlier post ridiculed the Mormon belief that there is a sin that cannot be forgiven. There is no difference.

Which is it? Are the Mormons right, you were wrong before, and you are now right since you have changed your mind?

Or are the Mormons wrong, you were right to ridicule them, but now you are wrong since you now agree with them?

The bottom line is that you are arrogant and ignorant. You obviously choose not to understand what you pretend to read. Pathetic.

C'mon MMDad. My earlier post was not intended to "ridicule" but to reveal what Mormons teach in contrast to the Holy Bible. I posted exact teachings of Mormon theology that states where Christ's Atoning Blood is insufficient for some sins and then it is up to Mormons to pay with their own atonement.

The act of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (rejecting any miracle and Truth revealed by The Holy Spirit and claiming it is of satan) is an entirely different sin and is the only unforgiveable sin according to the Holy Bible. There is no atonement that can be made for the person who knowingly and willfully mocks and rejects the Holy Spirit's Intervention and revelation of God's True Plan of Salvation to mankind.

 

[bcp]

So, libby, in your point of view, it is OK for Mormons to claim that the pope is a false prophet, and that their current 16th prophet, Thomas S. Monson is the "revelator" of God's truth.

you know, there are plenty of Christians around that feel the pope is a false prophit, that he is nothing more than a political figure, or equal to a CEO for some large corporation.
Im not saying the Catholic Church is wrong in the majority of their teaching, Im just saying that somewhere they have been taught to worship the wrong guy. Just look at the crowds that this guy pulls when he rides into town in his popebubble mobile, he waves, he smiles, he says a few words and out come the wallets to dump even more money into the vatican, all the while some pontiff somewhere is pumping some little boy in a remote room of a church.

 

[This_person]

A question (and we all know where I stand) the Pedophile (not gay ) Priests and the subsequent cover ups were all from the previous Popes, has this Pope ever condemned those actions?

Yes, in 2006 (October), and again in 2008 (many personal apologies to the vctims)

 

[Starman3000m]

A question (and we all know where I stand) the Pedophile (not gay ) Priests and the subsequent cover ups were all from the previous Popes, has this Pope ever condemned those actions?

The RCC has issued public condemnations of the actions whenever they have been revealed, as reported in recent news articles. However, I am unaware of whether the RCC has ever publicly acknowledged and issued an apology/condemnation against former popes who did not reflect the highest of ethical standards that are expected of the office of Holy See:

Following is an excerpt of such reported scandals that have rocked the RCC papacy in the past:

"One issue that is very damaging to idea of a Pope is the fact that some of the popes were so depraved, even people who professed no religion at all were ashamed of them. Looking into the history of the papacy, it is easy to see that not all popes were holy men. Accusations against them included but were not limited to blasphemy, simony (the buying and selling of the papal office), perjury, murder, adultery, intercourse with virgins and nuns, incest, sodomy, bestiality, robbery, idolatry, magic, infidelity, and gross and unnatural immorality. Historians, even Roman Catholic historians will even attest to the fact there have been many sinful popes. Therefore, if popes are supposed to be the "representatives of Christ" here on earth and they are living an immoral lifestyle, should their commands still be obeyed if they are living in sin? No, it would be hypocritical for them to make rulings and decrees, and yet this is exactly what has been done by the popes. Jesus never said, "do as I say, not as I do". On the contrary, Jesus Christ led a holy life and we should follow His example. Here are a few examples:

· Pope Sergius III obtained the papal office by murder. He lived openly with a woman who bore him several illegitimate children. His reign began a period known as "the rule of the harlots".

· Pope John XII was an immoral man and whose palace was likened to a brothel. The bishop of Cremona, Luitprand said, "No honest lady dared to show herself in public, for Pope John had no respect either for single girls, married women, or widows – they were sure to be defiled by him, even on the tombs of the holy apostles, Peter and Paul."

· Pope Boniface VIII maintained his position through lavish distribution of stolen money. He was quoted saying, "to enjoy oneself and lie carnally with women or with boys is no more a sin than rubbing one's hands together."

· Pope John XXIII was said to have seduced and violated three hundred nuns. He must have had a strong and insatiable libido for he kept a harem of no less than two hundred girls. He was called "the most depraved criminal who ever sat on the papal throne." A Vatican record says this about him, "His lordship, Pope John, committed perversity with the wife of his brother, incest with holy nuns, intercourse with virgins, adultery with the married, and all sorts of sex crimes... wholly given to sleep and other carnal desires, totally adverse to the life and teaching of Christ... he was publicly called the Devil incarnate."

· Pope Pius II was said to have been the father of many illegitimate children. He spoke openly of the methods he used to seduce women and he encouraged young men to also seduce women and even offered to instruct them in methods of self-indulgence.

· Pope Sixtus IV financed his wars by selling church offices to the highest bidders. He used the papacy to enrich himself and his family, for no less than eight cardinals were his nephews, some being given the position of cardinal even as a boy.

· Pope Alexander VI won the election of the papacy by bribery. He lived with a woman with whom he had a daughter; whom afterward he committed incest with and produced five children. He also lived in public incest with his two sisters. He conducted a sex orgy in the Vatican in which he had a banquet featuring fifty nude girls who danced and serviced the guests – and even offered prizes to the man who could engage in sexual intercourse the most times."

Source: Cult of Roman Catholicism