21 FACTS ABOUT MORMON TEACHING..
1. MORMON'S TEACH THAT THEY CAN BECOME GODS AND GODDESSES.
2. MORMON GODDESSES WILL SPEND ETERNITY IN FULL SUBMISSION TO THEIR GOD-HUSBAND.
3. MORMON'S TEACH THAT WOMEN WILL GIVE BIRTH “FOREVER AND EVER” TO SPIRIT-BABIES.
4. MORMON'S TEACH MEN CAN HAVE MULTIPLE WIVES IN HEAVEN—ETERNALPOLYGAMY. THEY INTEND TO HAVE MANY WIVES IN HEAVEN, CARRYING ON MULTIPLE SEX RELATIONS THROUGHOUT ETERNITY, UNTIL THEY HAVE ENOUGH CHILDREN TO POPULATE THEIR OWN EARTH, SO THEY CAN BE "HEAVENLY FATHER" OVER THEIR OWN PLANET!
5. HEAVENLY FATHER IS AN EXALTED MAN WHO LIVES WITH HIS GODDESS WIFE, HEAVENLY MOTHER, ON A PLANET NEAR THE GREAT STAR KOLOB.
6. AMERICAN INDIANS ARE DESCENDANTS OF THE WICKED LAMANITES, WHO WERE ISRAELITES THAT GOD CURSED WITH DARK SKIN.
7. GOD THE FATHER HAD SEX WITH MARY TO CONCEIVE JESUS. THEY SAY VIRGIN MARY REALLY WASN'T A VIRGIN AT ALL BUT HAD SEX RELATIONS WITH THEIR HEAVENLY FATHER TO PRODUCE THE MORMON VERSION OF JESUS CHRIST
8. MORMON'S TEACH THAT THERE IS ONLY SALVATION THROUGH THE MORMONS AND ALL OTHER CHRISTIAN CHURCHES ARE WRONG AND MORMONS ALSO DO BAPTISMS FOR THEIR DEAD.
9. MORMONS TEACH THAT THEY NEED 4 SECRET HANDSHAKES TO GET INTO THE CELESTIAL HEAVEN.
10. JOSEPH SMITH REVEALED THAT THE ACTUAL GARDEN OF EDEN IS IN JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI.
11. JOSEPH SMITH SAYS THAT HE SAW GOD AND JESUS BOTH, WHEN THEY APPEARED TO HIM.
12. MORMONS BELIEVE THAT LUCIFER AND JESUS ARE BROTHERS.
13. MORMONS BELIEVE THE ANGEL GABRIEL CAME DOWN TO EARTH AND BECAME NOAH IN THE DAYS OF THE FLOOD.
14. MORMONS CONSIDER THE BIBLE TO BE UNTRUSTWORTHY AND FULL OF ERRORS.
15. MORMONS BELIEVE THE ARCHANGEL MICHAEL CAME DOWN TO EARTH WITH SEVERAL OF HIS CELESTIAL WIVES, AND BECAME ADAM IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN.
16. THE MORMON FOUNDER AND THEIR PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH PROPHESIED FALSELY MANY TIMES. FOR EXAMPLE, HE FORETOLD THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST FOR 1891. THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT ONE FALSE PROPHECY PUTS THE PROPHET UNDER DEATH SENTENCE. (DEUTERONOMY 18:20-22).
17. MORMONS DOCTRINE TAUGHT AND BELIEVED THAT BEFORE 1978 THEY CONSIDERED THE NEGRO RACE INFERIOR, AND EVEN ONE DROP OF NEGRO BLOOD PREVENTED A PERSON FROM ENTERING THEIR PRIESTHOOD. NOW THEY WILL ALLOW MEN OF AFRICAN DECENT TO BE PRIESTS BUT THE FACT THAT THEY ONCE TAUGHT THIS PROVES THEY'RE A FALSE RELIGION.
18. MORMONS HAVE BOOKS OTHER THAN THE BIBLE THAT THEY CALL SCRIPTURES SUCH AS THE BOOK OF MORMON, PEARL OF GREAT PRICE, DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS. ALL THESE AND EVEN THEIR OFFICIAL "MORMON DOCTRINE" STATEMENTS CONTRADICT EACH OTHER ON MAJOR DOCTRINAL POINTS. THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS ALSO CONTRADICTED BY THESE BOOKS.
19. MORMONS BELIEVE JESUS HAD AT LEAST THREE WIVES AND CHILDREN WHILE HE WAS ON THIS EARTH.
20. JOESPH SMITH TAUGHT THAT THERE WERE INHABITANTS ON THE MOON, AND BRIGHAM YOUNG TAUGHT THERE WERE INHABITANTS ON THE SUN AS WELL! THE FACT THAT THESE TWO MEN ONCE TAUGHT THIS PROVES THEY WERE NOT REAL PROPHETS OF GOD. THEY WERE FALSE PROPHETS AND THIS RELIGION IS LEADING MANY SOULS TO HELL STILL TODAY.
21. MORMONS ALSO TEACH THAT THERE IS NO SALVATION WITHOUT JOSEPH SMITH. THEY TEACH THAT JOSEPH SMITH HOLDS THE KEYS TO THE KINGDOM OF GOD. THEY TEACH THAT JESUS' DEATH ON THE CROSS ONLY PARTIALLY SAVES THE BELIEVER. THEY ALSO TEACH THAT PEOPLE WILL STAND BEFORE GOD, JESUS AND JOSEPH SMITH ON JUDGEMENT DAY.
di ko kinaya mga doktrina ng morons este mormons pala. hehe
ReplyDeleteDont judge kasi wala ka rin pong alam.
DeleteHalos ng paniniwala na ay salungat sa itinituro ng bibliya..
DeleteUnless kung binabasa mo ang bible mo in context. yan ang hirap sa mga pilipino ngayon eh. mahina ang reading comphrehension. ngayon, respond kayo sa mga arguments na nalatag ko sa faulty blog article na ito. naiintindihan ba talaga ng blog author ang mormon theology?
DeleteHindi mo yata Alam na nasa 1 Corinthians 8:5
ReplyDeleteNa maraming tunay na diyos
Ituloy mo ang basa sa 1 Corinthian 8:6
Delete1 Cor. 8:5-6 shows that Christians and also Jews were monolatrous. they only worship one God without denying the existence of other lower gods. how could God be the God of gods? (Deut. 10:17)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe Plurality of the Gods in the Bible
DeleteThe Bible affirms the ontological existence of plural gods. Firstly, do note that in Latter-day Saint theology, “God” is a multivalent term, something Trinitarianism cannot allow when speaking of (true) divinities. That this is the Christological model of “Biblical Christianity” can be seen in many places, such as Heb 1:8-9:
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast love righteousness, and hated iniquity, therefore, God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness, above thy fellows.
This is an important pericope for many reasons—this is one of only a few places in the New Testament where Jesus has the term "God" (Greek: θεος) predicated upon him (others would include John 20:28 and probably, based on grammar, Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1], and yet, post-ascension, Jesus is differentiated, not simply from the person of the Father (ambiguously tolerated in Trinitarianism), but a differentiation from God (literally, the God [ο θεος]), something not tolerated in Trinitarianism. This can be further seen in the fact that this is a "midrash" of Psa 45:6-7, a royal coronation text for the Davidic King, of whom Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment (cf. 2 Sam 7). Both the Hebrew and the Greek LXX predicates "God" upon the king, and yet, there is a God (in the case of Jesus, God the Father) above him. The LXX reads the same as Hebrews; the Hebrew literally reads "elohim, your elohim" (alt. "God, your God" [ אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֱ֭לֹהֶיךָ (elohim eloheyka)].
That there is a "plurality of Gods" can be seen in a variety of texts, such as Deut 32:7-9 from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which places Yawheh as one of the Gods to whom jurisdiction of a nation is given and even in the book of Genesis (20:13), where elohim is coupled with a verb in the plural, meaning plural gods (elohim is irregular in Hebrew; it has a plural ending, but when coupled with a verb in the single person, it means "One G/god"; however, when coupled with a verb in the plural [as in Psa 82:6] means [plural] G/gods).
In Gen 20:13, the Hebrew reads (followed by my transliteration and translation of the text in red):
Deleteוַיְהִ֞י כַּאֲשֶׁ֧ר הִתְע֣וּ אֹתִ֗י אֱלֹהִים֘ מִבֵּ֣ית אָבִי֒ וָאֹמַ֣ר לָ֔הּ זֶ֣ה חַסְדֵּ֔ךְ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תַּעֲשִׂ֖י עִמָּדִ֑י אֶ֤ל כָּל־הַמָּקוֹם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר נָב֣וֹא שָׁ֔מָּה אִמְרִי־לִ֖י אָחִ֥י הֽוּא׃
Wyhy k'sr ht'w 'ty 'lhym mbbyt 'by ...
And it came to pass when (the) Gods caused me to wander from my father's house...
Another way to render the pertinent phrase would be, "And it came to pass when (the) Gods caused me to wander from my father's house . . ."
Not only is this consistent with LDS theology, but also supports the creation story in the Book of Abraham. If it had been the singular 'God', it would have been ht'h 'lhym rather than the plural ht'w 'lhym, consistent with the creation account of the Book of Abraham (Abraham 4:1ff) and LDS theology, though it blows strict forms of monotheism (whether Unitarian or creedal Trinitarian) out of the water. If one wants to see the exegetical gymnastics Trinitarians have to engage in to play-down the theological importance of this verse
Another key text is that of 2 Kgs 3:27:
DeleteThen he [Mesha] took his firstborn son who was to succeed him, and offered him as a burnt offering on the wall. And great wrath came upon Israel, so they withdrew from him and returned to their own land. (NRSV)
Commenting on this passage, one LDS scholar wrote:
We know from epigraphic and archaeological evidence that each nation state had its own god. For example, Milcom was the god of Ammon, Chemosh was the god of Moab, Qos was the god of Edom and Yahweh was the god of Israel. Indeed, according to 2 Kings 3:26-27, the king of Moab was motivated by the wrath of Chemosh to turn against Israel by sacrificing his son to Chemosh. t this point, Israel's success against Moab faltered and Israel was defeated. This text actually grants power to a foreign god to inspire humans and change the course of history for God's chosen people. It is difficult to see the writer(s) of this passage as believing that Chemosh was not real, for what isn't real cannot have such causal effects in the history of the world. The Ugaritic background of this concept seems evident, for El fathered seventy sons and thereby established the number of the sons of El or sons of God. (Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, vol. 3: Of God and Gods [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008], 51-52)
With respect to Deut 32:7-9, the NRSV (1989) of this pericope reads:
Remember the days of old, consider the years long past; ask your father and he will inform you, Your elders will tell you. When the Most High gave nations their homes and set the divisions of man, he fixed the boundaries of peoples in relation to Israel's numbers. For the Lord's portion is his people, Jacob his own allotment.
One will note that this differs from the KJV; the Mastoretic Text (MT) underlying the KJV OT reads "sons of Adam/Man," while the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest text of the book of Deuteronomy, has the reading "sons of god" (the Hebrew beni-elim) or, as Ancient Near Eastern scholars understand the term, "gods."
In the second edition of The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford University Press, 2014), we read the following note on page 419:
Most High, or “Elyon,” is a formal title of El, the senior god who presided over the divine council in the Ugaritic literature of ancient Canaan. The reference thus invokes, as do other biblical texts, the Near Eastern convention of a pantheon of gods ruled by the chief deity (Pss. 82:1; 89:6-8). Israelite authors regularly applied El’s title to Israel’s God (Gen. 14:18-22; Num. 24:16; Pss. 46:5; 47:3). [with reference to the variant in the DSS “number of the gods”] makes more sense. Here, the idea is that the chief god allocates the nations to lesser deities in the pantheon. (A post-biblical notion that seventy angels are in charge of the world’s seventy nations echoes this idea.) Almost certainly, the unintelligible reading of the MT represents a “correction” of the original text (whereby God presides over other gods) to make it conform to the later standard of pure monotheism: There are no other gods! The polytheistic imagery of the divine council is also deleted in the Heb at 32:42; 33:2-3, 7.
alam mo ba kung ano ang kingship monotheism?
DeleteOther texts could be discussed, such as 1 Cor 8:4-6, which sums up the LDS perspective rather well--there is, to us, One God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ (cf. Deut 6:4; Eph 4:5-6), but such does not preclude other beings who can correctly be called "god" having true existence and being in the midst of God--in fact, such is required by the biblical data when one takes a pan-canonical approach to theology and the Bible (just as one example, take Psa 29:1 "A psalm of David. Ascribe to the Lord, o divine beings [Heb: בְּנֵ֣י אֵלִ֑ים beni-elim], ascribe to the Lord glory and strength" [1985 Tanakh, Jewish Publications Society]).Both the Latter-day Saint and biblical understanding of this issue can be best summed up in the as "kingship monotheism":
DeleteKingship MonotheismThere are many gods, but all of the gods are subordinate to a Most High God to whom the gods give ultimate honour and glory and without whose authority and approval they do not act in relation to the world. (Blake Ostler, Of God and Gods [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008], p. 43).
Also, logically, one has to conclude a plurality of Gods, unless one wishes to explicitly reject at least one of premises a-c from the following:
DeleteA. There are at least three divine persons.
B. Every divine person is God
C. If every a = b, there cannot be fewer B's than A's
D. Conclusion: There are at least three Gods.
On Psa 82:6, perhaps one of the most popular texts Latter-day Saints cite in favour of this doctrine, consider the following comments from three Evangelical Protestant scholars in a recent commentary:
Psalm 82: King of the Gods Psalm 82 places the modern reader in a very unfamiliar world. Modern thinkers hold to a monotheistic theology, meaning there is only one god and the gods of others simply do not exist. Ancient Israel did not have the same definition of monotheism. Indeed, for them not only did other gods exist, but these gods were active in the world. This psalm gives us a window on the assembly of the gods, a place where the gods are gathered to make decisions about the world. This council is part of the greater ancient Near Eastern mythology and would be a familiar image to ancient Israelites. A multitude of texts demonstrate this belief, e.g. Exod. 20:3-6; Deut. 4:15-20; josh. 24:14-15. In addition, many prophetic texts extol the people to love God alone and not go after other gods, e.g., Jer. 8:19; Hos. 11:2. In later texts, the theology seems to move more toward an exclusive monotheism; see. Isa. 41:21-24 . . . Verses 6-7 place the gods on equal footing with the humans. They have lost their immortality, hence their god status. This ability for the Go of Israel to demote the others speaks of the power of the king of the council. The king alone can control all of the other gods. This divine trial also demonstrates the fairness of Israel’s god. This god is not capricious, but sentences the other gods for their refusal to act in ways that reflect the values of God’s kingdom . . . [Psalm 89:5-8] set the state in the heavenly council. In vv.5 and 8, God is praised by the heavens for God’s faithfulness, and this certainly continues the theme of vv.1-4 while also broadening God’s faithfulness to the whole world. The questions in v.6 are rhetorical, just as in Isa. 40:18 and Pss. 18:31 and 77:13, followed by the declaration of God’s clear supremacy among the gods (v.7). God is not only the God of Israel but is the chief god of the council, and all others bow before the Lord. [2] See 1 Kgs. 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12; Zech. 1:7-17. See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, pp. 177-90. The Gilgamesh Epic is a story that concerns Gilgamesh’s quest for immortality that will make him a god, indicating the importance of immortality in ancient myth. (Nancy Declaissé-Walford, Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth Laneel Tanner, The Book of Psalms [New International Old Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2014], 641, 642, 680).
One could go on and on, but the evidence from sound biblical scholarship and exegesis supports Joseph Smith's teachings on a plurality of Gods.
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many [ὥσπερ εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοὶ], and lords many,) (1 Cor 8:5)
DeleteCommenting on the phrase “as there be gods many,” Paul Rainbow argued that this phrase shows that Paul did accept the ontological existence of these θεοι, contra many commentators who errantly claimed non-existent idols were in view in this text:
ὥσπερ εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοὶ (v 5)
The second clause in v 5 transfers what is conceded out of the realm of hypothesis into that of actuality. The change from εἴπερ εἰσὶν to ὥσπερ εἰσὶν effects the transfer: 'even if there should be—as in fact there are'. This rules out the view that Paul denies the existence of the gods and recognizes them as forces of evil only because people wrongly believe in them. He thinks they are really there in some sense.
The qualification λεγόμενοι carries over in thought from the preceding phrase into this one as well: in comparison with the one God, these beings are wrongly spoken of as divine. Yet that is not to deny that they are gods in a secondary sense. Paul's use of the compound phrase καὶ εἴπερ at the beginning o v 5 shows that he wishes to concede the extreme case of the side of polytheism in order rhetorically to enhance his contrasting confession of monotheism in v 6. hence the mounting tension as he moves from hypothesis (εἴπερ) to actuality (ὥσπερ) in v 5. In view of the fact that Paul, like other Jews of the period, was aware of the broad Hellenistic usage of the word θεος for superhuman beings, and was able in another passage himself to use the word in this way for Satan (II Cor .4.4), it is likely that here too he intends to grant these beings some genuine power. The title 'gods' is not entirely unjustified. Paul for a moment allows the word to have its wider reference. O. Everling struck the nail on the head: these beings have an objective existence but are improperly regarded as gods when compared to the one God, nevertheless it is not illegitimate to call them θεοι, κυριοι. (Paul Andrew Rainbow, Monotheism and Christology in 1 Corinthians 8.4-6 [Oxford, D. Phil. Diss., 1987], 144-45)
Baka nakuha mo nanaman Dyan sa mga bintang ni
ReplyDeleteEli Bakla
#Kato-Liko
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYung No.4 pala,
ReplyDeleteItinigil na ng LDS church yung noong end of 1800's. At sa totoo,Hanapin mo pala sa 1 Corinthians na kailangang mabautismo ang mga Patay.
Speaking sa Becoming a god,ito
ReplyDelete1 Peter 1:16
In John 8:17-18 Christ
ReplyDeletecompared Him and His father to "two men". Both "men" bore witness to this divinity. I am sure
we will agree to Christ's human aspects while in the flesh. He was a human being like you and
I, only He had God ship within him. We read in John 5:19 "The Son can do nothing of himself,
but what He seeth the Father do; for what things so ever He doeth, these ALSO DOETH THE
SON LIKEWISE." We read also in the scripture "As the Father hath power to himself, even so
hath the Son power." (John 5:26) The answer is so obvious. What was Jesus going to do?
(John 5:26) John 10:17-18 tells us "therefore doth my Father Love me, because I lay down my
life, that I might take it again, No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself, I have
power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." This is why the prophet taught these
truths. Christ said He could do nothing of himself but what He had seen His Father do, and
here we read where He was to take His body and lay it down and take it up again. There's
your answer from the Bible. It's for you to accept or reject, but it is true, and it is from the
mouth of Christ. Notice it was the same identical power of the Father. Therefore the only
conclusion you can get from this is that our Father in heaven is a resurrected being which
means He would appear as Jesus did after He was resurrected and appeared to the apostles.
Hahaha, nakakatawa talaga toh!! 😂😂😂
ReplyDeleteFAKE NEWS lang pala patnubay mo😆😆😆
Please wag nyong siraan ang totoo at nag iisang simbhan,kasi waka kayong alam.
ReplyDeletethats simply an ad hominem argument and also, youre appelaing to authority
Delete1. MORMON'S TEACH THAT THEY CAN BECOME GODS AND GODDESSES.
ReplyDeleteMy Response: Sinasabi ng Banal na Kasulatan na magpakasakdal at magpakabanal tayo gaya ng Dios (Matt. 5:48; 1 Pedro 1:15-16; Lev. 11:44-45; 19:2; 20:7, 26). Sinabi ng Panginoon sa Psalms 82:6 na, "Aking sinabi, Kayo'y mga dios, at kayong lahat ay mga anak ng Kataastaasan."
Inulit ng Tagapagligtas ang sitas na ito sa mga taong gusto siyang batuhin dahil ginagawa niya ang sarili niya na Dios, at kaniyang dinagdag, "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:30-36). sinulat ni Pedro na we can become "makibahagi tayo sa kabanalang mula sa Dios" (2 Pedro 1:2-4), while sinabi ni Pablo na bilang "mga anak ng Dios" puwede tayo na maging "mga tagapagmana sa Dios, at mga kasamang tagapagmana ni Cristo" (Rom. 8:14-15). sinabi din ni Juan na tayo ay ang "mga anak ng Dios," na "na kung siya'y mahayag, tayo'y magiging katulad niya: sapagka't siya'y ating makikitang gaya ng kaniyang sarili." at na "sinomang mayroon ng pagasang ito sa kaniya ay naglilinis sa kaniyang sarili, gaya naman niyang malinis." (1 Jn. 3:1-3).Christ appointed his own Godly kingdom by the Heavenly Father (Luke 22:29, Rom. 8:16-17), (we're equals with Christ). pagkatapos na magawa natin ang ating makakaya, tayo ay magiging mga tagapamahala at hindi mga tagapaglingkod (Mateo 25:21).Christ makes us millennial rulers after our resurrection, not "subjects" (Rev. 20:6). Christ, while in Heaven, tells us we get to inherit kingdoms that were promised to us before creation (Matt. 25:34).First we are earthly, and then progress to being Heavenly (1 Cor. 15:49).We get to overcome and sit on Christ's throne, just as Christ overcame and sits on his Father's throne (Rev. 3:21) this doctrine of deafication was also taught by early Christian Theologians.
Irenaeus (ca. AD 115 - 202)
ReplyDelete"While man gradually advances and mounts towards perfection; that is, he approaches the eternal. The eternal is perfect; and this is God. Man has first to come into being, then to progress, and by progressing come to manhood, and having reached manhood to increase, and thus increasing to persevere, and persevering to be glorified, and thus see his Lord."
Gaya ng mga LDS, naniniwala si Irenaus na hindi sinasabi ng paniniwalang ito na papalitan ang Dios o ang Espiritu Santo
"there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption....Since, therefore, this is sure and stedfast, that no other God or Lord was announced by the Spirit, except Him who, as God, rules over all, together with His Word, and those who receive the Spirit of adoption."
Yet, Irenaeus—whom it would be perverse to exclude from the ranks of orthodox Christians—believed in theosis in terms which agree with LDS thinking on the matter:
" We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods."....Also:...." How then will any be a god, if he has not first been made a man? How can any be perfect when he has only lately been made man? How immortal, if he has not in his mortal nature obeyed his maker? For one's duty is first to observe the discipline of man and thereafter to share in the glory of God." And:....." Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, of his boundless love, became what we are that he might make us what he himself is.” And:...." But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, "I have said, Ye are gods, and all sons of the Most High." To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the "adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father."
At sinasabi ni Irenaus na biblical ito gaya ng mga LDS:
".....For he who holds, without pride and boasting, the true glory (opinion) regarding created things and the Creator, who is the Almighty God of all, and who has granted existence to all; [such an one, ] continuing in His love and subjection, and giving of thanks, shall also receive from Him the greater glory of promotion, looking forward to the time when he shall become like Him who died for him, for He, too, "was made in the likeness of sinful flesh," to condemn sin, and to cast it, as now a condemned thing, away beyond the flesh, but that He might call man forth into His own likeness, assigning him as [His own] imitator to God, and imposing on him His Father's law, in order that he may see God, and granting him power to receive the Father; [being] the Word of God who dwelt in man, and became the Son of man, that He might accustom man to receive God, and God to dwell in man, according to the good pleasure of the Father."
Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215)
Clement, an early Christian leader in Alexandria, also taught the doctrine of deification:
ReplyDelete"yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god."...And.."...if one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God...His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus was right when he said, "Men are gods, and gods are men."
"Those who have been perfected are given their reward and their honors. They have done with their purification, they have done with the rest of their service, though it be a holy service, with the holy; now they become pure in heart, and because of their close intimacy with the Lord there awaits them a restoration to eternal contemplation; and they have received the title of "gods" since they are destined to be enthroned with the other "gods" who are ranked next below the savior. "
Augustine (AD 354-430)
Augustine, considered one of the greatest Christian Fathers, said
" but He himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying He makes sons of God. For He has given them power to become the sons of God, (John 1:12). If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods"
2. MORMON GODDESSES WILL SPEND ETERNITY IN FULL SUBMISSION TO THEIR GOD-HUSBAND.
ReplyDeleteMy Response : this is actually a caricatured version of the doctrine of celestial marriage. The Savior told Peter that “whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 16:18; cf. Matt. 18:18). And the bible also teaches that “ What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matt. 19:6). And that “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 11:11), And the bible also teaches that “ whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever” (Ec. 3:14)
Regarding the “full submission”, the bible explicitly teaches this.just like Paul said “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.” (Eph. 5:22; 5:25; cf. Col. 3:18)
kuya adviser. GUMAWA KA NGA EDIN NG RATIONAL ARGUMENTS. halos lahat ng mga sinasabi mo dito, panay caricatured versions (strawman arguments)
ReplyDeleteChurch leaders have said very little about this, because little is known about the process
ReplyDeleteThe fact that we do not know the exact process by which “spirit children” are created does not mean that LDS leaders have not speculated on the process. There are a few quotes that are often used to support the critics’ concept of “Celestial sex," which we will now examine:
BRUCE R. MCCONKIE, MORMON DOCTRINE, P. 387
"[I]ntelligence or spirit element became intelligences after the spirits were born as individual [spirit] entities."
BRUCE R. MCCONKIE, MORMON DOCTRINE, P. 750
"Our spirit bodies had their beginning in pre-existence when we were born as the spirit children of God our Father. Through that birth process spirit element was organized into intelligent entities."
BRIGHAM YOUNG, JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, VOL. 11, 122
"[God] created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be."
— Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:122..
JOHN A. WIDTSOE, A RATIONAL THEOLOGY, P. 69
The author of the anti-Mormon book Becoming Gods says the following:
"As for the sexual aspect of this event, LDS apostle John A. Widtsoe explained, 'Sex Among the Gods. Sex, which is indispensable on this earth for the perpetuation of the human race, is an eternal quality which has its equivalent everywhere.'" (p. 392, n14)
Upon reading the quote above, it does indeed sound as if Widtsoe is talking about a “sex act” among gods. It must be noted, however, that Widtsoe referred to "sex" as a "quality" rather than a "practice." Of course, the fact that two genders exist at all implies that it somehow takes both to accomplish the creation of spirit children. Looking at Widtsoe’s quote in context, we learn that he is not speaking about the sex act, but about gender:
Sex Among the Gods.
Sex, which is indispensable on this earth for the perpetuation of the human race, is an eternal quality which has its equivalent everywhere. It is indestructible. The relationship between men and women is eternal and must continue eternally. In accordance with Gospel philosophy there are males and females in heaven. Since we have a Father, who is our God, we must also have a mother, who possesses the attributes of Godhood. This simply carries onward the logic of things earthly, and conforms with the doctrine that whatever is on this earth is simply a representation of spiritual conditions of deeper meaning than we can here fathom.
Would a “sex act” be considered a “quality” that was “indestructible?” Critics rely on contextual presentism by quoting the term "sex" without the context that makes its meaning clear. It is more reasonable to consider “gender” a “quality” that is “indestructible.” Consider the following quote from James E. Talmage.
“We affirm as reasonable, scriptural, and true, the eternity of sex among the children of God. The distinction between male and female is no condition peculiar to the relatively brief period of mortal life. It was an essential characteristic of our pre-existent condition, even as it shall continue after death, in both disembodied and resurrected states .... [The] scriptures attest a state of existence preceding mortality, in which the spirit children of God lived, doubtless with distinguishing characteristics, including the distinction of sex, "before they were [created] naturally upon the face of the earth." ("The Eternity of Sex," Millennial Star (24 August 1922): 530.)"
Note the phrase “the distinction of sex.” Talmage is not talking about a “sex act,” but rather the distinction between the two sexes or genders.
3. MORMON'S TEACH THAT WOMEN WILL GIVE BIRTH “FOREVER AND EVER” TO SPIRIT-BABIES.
ReplyDeleteMy Response: It is the critics of the Church that invented and use the offensive term "celestial sex" This is not a term used by Latter-day Saints. It has, in fact, never been used by Latter-day Saints. The use of the term "celestial sex" by critics is intended to be demeaning and shocking to Latter-day Saints or interested readers. The use of such tactics may say much about the mainstream culture's preoccupation with sexual behavior. However, it says nothing about the actual beliefs of Church members. Critics of the Church twist LDS beliefs into a form that makes them look ridiculous. Quotes made by early LDS leaders are often used to support the claim that Latter-day Saints believe in “Celestial sex.” It should be noted, however, that LDS leaders have never used the term "Celestial sex." This phrase was coined by critics of the Church, likely for its “shock value” in portraying the following concepts in LDS belief:
The belief that God the Father has a physical body.
The belief that there exists a Heavenly Mother who also possesses a physical body.
The belief that our Heavenly Father and Mother together are capable of creating “spirit children.”
Critics take these ideas and combine them, leading to a declaration that Latter-day Saints therefore believe in “Celestial sex.” Various anti-Mormon works then use this idea to mock LDS beliefs or shock their readers—though this claim does not describe LDS beliefs, but the critics' caricature of them.
4. MORMON'S TEACH MEN CAN HAVE MULTIPLE WIVES IN HEAVEN—ETERNAL POLYGAMY. THEY INTEND TO HAVE MANY WIVES IN HEAVEN, CARRYING ON MULTIPLE SEX RELATIONS THROUGHOUT ETERNITY, UNTIL THEY HAVE ENOUGH CHILDREN TO POPULATE THEIR OWN EARTH, SO THEY CAN BE "HEAVENLY FATHER" OVER THEIR OWN PLANET!
ReplyDeleteMy Response : This is actually a caricatured version of the actual doctrine. You can see the previous responses
5. HEAVENLY FATHER IS AN EXALTED MAN WHO LIVES WITH HIS GODDESS WIFE, HEAVENLY MOTHER, ON A PLANET NEAR THE GREAT STAR KOLOB.
ReplyDeleteMormons believe in human deification, but what this doctrine means or entails is beyond human comprehension. It is claimed by some that Mormons believe that they can push themselves higher in a type of 'celestial pecking order.' This is often expressed by the claim that Latter-day Saint men wish to become "gods of their own planets." One critic even extends this to our "own universe," Mormons teach that by obedience to all the commandments of Mormonism, a Mormon may attain the highest degree of heaven and ultimately become a god, creating and ruling over his own universe. Do you believe that? Is this your ultimate personal goal? Members of the Church—like early Christians—believe in human deification or theosis. They assert that this doctrine is taught in the Bible and by modern revelation. However, what this doctrine means or entails is beyond human comprehension anyway. "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him," taught Paul (1 Cor. 2:9).
Most members of the Church realize that they have enough on their plates to do and become through Christian discipleship and keeping their covenants. They do not spend much time concerned about the details of their future state. They are simply confident that they will be happy, in families, and back in the presence of God where they will continue to do His will. Certainly we can have the end in mind, remembering the relationship of Father to child is crucial. He will always, through all eternity, be our Father and our God. Still, it would be unwise to jump the gun and assume we are practically almost there; we have plenty to do in the meantime, and an eternal and abiding need for the grace of Christ to compensate for our manifest inadequacies. The critics' accusations along these lines are a caricature of LDS belief, and omit virtually everything of importance in their discussion of this doctrine.
The caricature: Mormons wishing to "get their own planet"
ReplyDeleteMormons, along with many other Christian denominations, believe in deification or theosis, based on the teaching that we can become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:17). Little is known, though much might be speculated, about the specific details of our potential under this doctrine. Reducing it to ruling a planet caricatures a profound and complex belief. The use of the word “planet” makes Mormons seem more like sci-fi enthusiasts than devout Christians. This isn’t just a quibble about semantics. Claims that Mormons hope for “their own planets” almost always aim to disrespect and marginalize, not to understand or clarify. The reality is that we seek eternal life, which we consider to be a life like that of our Father in Heaven. We consider our immediate task on Earth to learn to understand and obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ, rather than speculate on what life might be like if we achieve exaltation. Specifics about the creation of worlds and the ability to govern them upon achieving eternal life are not clarified in Latter-day Saint scripture. Attempts to portray these concepts as simply wanting to “get our own planet” are a mockery of Latter-day Saint beliefs. The reality: Latter-day Saints wishing to become like their Father in Heaven
Much criticism of Joseph Smith and the Church in general stems from a teaching regarding the eternal potential of mankind.[37] The Church believes that men and women are the "offspring" of Heavenly Parents (see Acts 17:28-29) composed of the same eternal substance (see DC 93:33-35) and hence we have divine possibilities through the grace of Christ. Latter-day Saints believe that they can achieve a life like that of our Father in Heaven. This implies that one can eventually participate in similar works, among which would be the creation of worlds. In 2001, Elder Henry B. Eyring of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles noted, The real life we’re preparing for is eternal life. Secular knowledge has for us eternal significance. Our conviction is that God, our Heavenly Father, wants us to live the life that He does. We learn both the spiritual things and the secular things “so we may one day create worlds [and] people and govern them” (Henry B. Eyring, quoting Spencer W. Kimball, Ensign, October 2002.)
In John 8:17-18 Christ, compared Him and His father to "two men". Both "men" bore witness to this divinity. I am sure we will agree to Christ's human aspects while in the flesh. He was a human being like you and I, only He had God ship within him. We read in John 5:19 "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what He seeth the Father do; for what things so ever He doeth, these ALSO DOETH THE SON LIKEWISE." We read also in the scripture "As the Father hath power to himself, even so hath the Son power." (John 5:26) The answer is so obvious. What was Jesus going to do? John 10:17-18 tells us "therefore doth my Father Love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again, No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself, I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." This is why the prophet taught these truths. Christ said He could do nothing of himself but what He had seen His Father do, and here we read where He was to take His body and lay it down and take it up again. There's your answer from the Bible. It's for you to accept or reject, but it is true, and it is from the mouth of Christ. Notice it was the same identical power of the Father. Therefore the only
conclusion you can get from this is that our Father in heaven is a resurrected being which means He would appear as Jesus did after He was resurrected and appeared to the apostles.
6. AMERICAN INDIANS ARE DESCENDANTS OF THE WICKED LAMANITES, WHO WERE ISRAELITES THAT GOD CURSED WITH DARK SKIN.
ReplyDeleteMy Response : why did you exagerated this issue? we dont call the Lamanites 'wicked', since there were also rightheous lamanites like Samuel the lamanite, which is a prophet
7. GOD THE FATHER HAD SEX WITH MARY TO CONCEIVE JESUS. THEY SAY VIRGIN MARY REALLY WASN'T A VIRGIN AT ALL BUT HAD SEX RELATIONS WITH THEIR HEAVENLY FATHER TO PRODUCE THE MORMON VERSION OF JESUS CHRIST
ReplyDeleteMy Response : The Church has no such doctrine. we dont teach that God has a sexual relationship with Mary. we teach the virgin birth (see 1 Nephi 11:18-21)
8. MORMON'S TEACH THAT THERE IS ONLY SALVATION THROUGH THE MORMONS AND ALL OTHER CHRISTIAN CHURCHES ARE WRONG AND MORMONS ALSO DO BAPTISMS FOR THEIR DEAD.
Christ built only ONE TRUE CHURCH (Matt. 16:19; Eph. 4:1-15), and we should not Ignore the importance of an organized church (the "Body of Christ," Eph. 1:22-23) as a means of receiving Christ's Spirit and fullness, and of being perfected (1 Cor. 12:1-13; Eph. 4:11-13; Col. 1:18-19 and 2:9-10).. The view that men can be saved simply by a "private" or "personal relationship with Christ" is nowhere contained in Scripture.
Baptism for the dead was also practiced by Early Christians (see 1 Cor. 15:29), since baptism was essential for salvation (John 3:5; Mark 16:16; Rom. 6:5-7; 1 Cor. 12:13; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Tit. 3:5; Gal. 3:27)
9. MORMONS TEACH THAT THEY NEED 4 SECRET HANDSHAKES TO GET INTO THE CELESTIAL HEAVEN.
These handshakes are sacred and not secret. this is a very old symbol of brotherly love that can be found on tombstones in New England. Found even on the graves of women who would not have been Masons. This emblem has been well documented in early Christian iconography by Todd Compton and Stephen Ricks. (Stephen D. Ricks, "Dexiosis and Dextrarum Iunctio: The Sacred Handclasp in the Classical and Early Christian World," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 18, no. 1 (1989–2011) off-site; Todd M. Compton, “The handclasp and embrace as tokens of recognition,” By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley, eds. John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks, 2 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1990) 1: 611–42.)
MORMONS BELIEVE THAT LUCIFER AND JESUS ARE BROTHERS.
ReplyDeleteResponse : si Jesus ang firstborn spiritual child ni Heavenly Father (Rom. 8:29,Col. 1:15).God is the literal Father of our spirits (Heb. 12:9,Acts 17:28-19). kasama sa spiritual children si Jesus. he is also a spirit being before, like us. he is also our spiritual sibling. pinaka-kuya natin kumbaga. Lucifer, a former angel was also before a spirit child of God.
" Jesus is God and Satan was a fallen angel".
yes. the LDS church do believe the same, but it doesnt refute the fact that jesus and satan were spiritual brothers. hindi ibig sabihin na Dios si Cristo eh dios din si satan. Jesus was made God by the father, but not satan.
"we must first understand that lucifer ( which means lightbearer in latin, in hebrew, original shining one ) was in the beginning 'a son of the morning'(Isa. 14:13-14) and was perfect in all his ways until iniquity was found in him (Ez. 28:13-15) thereafter, he aspired to exalt himself and become 'like the most high' (Isa. 14:13-14). Lucifer lust for power led to his downfall. because of his rebellion against God, he was cast out as a 'lightening' and 'became satan' (Moses 4:3-4,Luke 10:18,Rev. 12:7-9,2 Neph. 12:17-18,D&C 76:25-27)
we should note that lucifer was not created as a evil being but became satan by his own choice. it should be ironic that satan is evil while his Christ brother was righteous but we should remember that he was among many who were spirit brother that some has a spirit of rebellion should come as no suprise. Isaiah 14:13-14 and Revelation 12:7-9 makes it clear that it was so.we find similar examples among other brothers in the scriptures : Cain and Abel, Joseph and his brothers,and Jacob and Esau.we should note that even among the apostles chosen by Christ was found Judas Iscariot; a man who was initially at least worthy of that calling."
- Michael Hickiembotham
( for a much detailed explanation for this topic, pdf link here https://www.fairmormon.org/.../hickenbotham-jesus-satan... )
16. THE MORMON FOUNDER AND THEIR PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH PROPHESIED FALSELY MANY TIMES. FOR EXAMPLE, HE FORETOLD THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST FOR 1891. THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT ONE FALSE PROPHECY PUTS THE PROPHET UNDER DEATH SENTENCE. (DEUTERONOMY 18:20-22).
ReplyDeleteMy Response : If this test is true to Joseph Smith, this would also be true to Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, John, or any other person claiming to be a prophet.
Sumitas tayo mula sa Biblia at nang makita natin kung makakapasa sila sa test.
Gawin nating halibawa so Jeremias at tingnan natin kung papalpak siya sa pagkapropeta. Nagalit si Jeremias na hindi nagkatotoo ang kanyang mga prophecies hanggang sa natawag niya ang Dios na isang sinungaling (Jer. 15:18). If one is an extreme literalist, ang mga prediction ni Jeremias na 70 years na captivity ay hindi natupad. It was less than seventy years. prinedict din ni Jeremias na mamamatay nang mapayapa si Haring Zedekias at sila ay magsusunog ng insenso para sa kanya (Jer. 34:4-5). Instead, tinanggalan ng mata si Zedekias at ang kanyang mga anak ay pinagpapatay, at siya ay namatay sa isang billangguan sa Babilonia. On another occasion, prinophecy ni Jeremias na si Jehoiakim na "siya ay mawawalan ng uupo sa trono ni David,” (Jer. 36:30), ngunit ang sumunod na umupo sa trono ay si Jeconias, ang anak ni Jehoiakim. (tingnan ang 1 Cro. 3:16; Jer. 37:1), at may iba pa, pero ayon sa iyong argumento, one mistake and you are out, so si Jeremias is out and isang bulaang propeta.