I often look at the book section in the local Walmart. Yesterday, there was a crowd.
I find it very interesting what Walmart sells for books in the evangelical section. Joel Osteen is popular over how to make you better and bigger. But I have never seen many books being sold that solely make God big and you small, except the Bible.
Looking over the large LDS section in Walmart, I did buy a book, Why Would Anyone Join The Mormon Church? (Springville: Cedar Fort, 1998) by Brad V. Brase. The book has a new 2005 cover by Lyle Mortimer.
Stephen Davidson writes on the back, “Every member of the Church needs to know about this book. It delivers exactly what I’ve always wanted to say to my non-member and less-active friends and family. This book is the greatest non-scripture missionary resource I’ve seen in my more than forty-five years of missionary work.”
As I started reading, Brad is basically seeking to dismantle and destroy the core of everything precious that God has taught me about Himself in Scripture.
Brad writes,
Just as the teachings of uninspired men were mixed with scriptural truths to pervert the true doctrine of the Godhead, so, too, did they influence the original doctrines relative to the physical nature of the Father. The philosophies of men, particularly those of the ancient Greeks and Gnostics, were largely responsible for the discorporation or disembodiment of God.
The Greek philosopher, Plato, espoused a dualism between the spirit (intellect) and matter. The Greeks, as well as the Gnostics, perceived physical matter as evil and corruptible while spirit was good and incorruptible. This dualism promoted the idea that the pure, immaterial spirit was imprisoned within the defiled flesh during this earthly existence. It was this false belief that gave rise to certain orders of monks and recluses who sought to subdue their physical bodies through extreme ascetic practices of self-denial and torture in order that their spirits might gain greater freedom.
The influence exerted by Greek philosophers on the Christian faith began to take its toll as more and more Greek converts joined the Church. The offensive Christian anthropomorphism was replaced by Greek intellectualism. ‘There is one God, greatest among gods and men; neither in appearance nor in mind does he resemble mortals’ (Xenophanes). ‘Since he is eternal and one and equally distributed, he can be neither boundless nor bound, for he has neither center nor definition or any other part’ (Xenophanes). ‘He has no human head or limbs, neither from his back do two arms grow, nor legs, nor trunk nor other parts, but he is sacred, ineffable (indescribable) Mind, filling the whole vast universe with his thoughts’ (Empedocles). ‘Since it is One it can have no corporeal substance; if it were vulnerable it would have parts, and having parts it would not be One’ (Melissus).
It cannot be conceived of as having any size or parts or division, since it is not limited, as every dimension must be, or to be infinite is to have not dimensions’ (Aristotle). ‘He is not like a man or any living thing, he has no body great or small, but is unutterable, indefinable, incomparable, to anything else, divine, alone . . . ‘ (Plutarch). ‘The good is the opposite of anything corporeal’ (Plutarch). ‘All matter is evil, there is nothing true or good in it, since it is the opposite of perfect Being’ (Plotinus). The similarities between this Hellenistic concept of deity and the popular concept of an immaterial, incomprehensible God recognized since the post-apostolic period are more than mere coincidence.
These Greek and Gnostic teachings had a detrimental effect on the true principles of Christ’s gospel, giving birth to the belief that God must be only pure spirit in order to be incorruptible. These false doctrines were able to creep into the Church after the death of the apostles and the resultant cessation of divine revelation. The proponents of this concept of the Eternal Father as an immaterial spirit essence failed to realize that His physical nature in no way rendered Him corruptible or limited in power.
Latter-day Saints do not believe that the glorious, resurrected body possessed by his Son, Jesus Christ, is incorruptible or imperfect, or that it inhibits His almighty power in any way. Likewise, the body possessed by the Father enhances, not lessens, His own greatness and power.
The physical resurrection of Jesus Christ is unequivocal evidence that matter is not evil. Would the Lord take on an eternal, glorified body consisting of physical matter if matter was known to be evil? Actually, it is spirit that shows evil tendencies, as witnessed in the unembodied evil spirits of Satan and his wicked followers. The power of righteousness or wickedness lies within the spirit, not physical matter.
If matter was truly evil as the philosophers would have us believe, then why would God offer us the promise of eternal life in a resurrected body? Also, if God is nonphysical as many believe, then why would God, who has power to do all things and who possesses an infinite love for His children, give us an eternal physical body when He could endow us with a supposedly superior nonphysical spirit essence?” (35-36).
Friends, it is outlandish to say that I believe God is Spirit because I have been duped by Greek philosophy which claims matter is evil. Is Plotinus, neo-Platonic? This guy is nuts.
And could this last question by Brad be posed this way,”If God really loves me, why won’t he let me become a God, too?”
Should God be angry over this question?
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
Friends, it is outlandish to say that I believe God is Spirit because I have been duped by Greek philosophy which claims matter is evil.
Really? Why is that outlandish?
And could this last question by Brad be posed this way,”If God really loves me, why won’t he let me become a God, too?”
As I read that last question in the quote I have no idea how one could justify re-posing it the way you did…
Geoff, where have I taught that matter in itself is evil? A dualism? A perverted gnosticism? I could have implied this somewhere, but I would need to be corrected by Scripture and by the revealed fact Jesus is 100% perfect man.
To the second statement, Geoff, God didn’t create us to be like Him in essence. Brad seems to be implying that in God’s love for us, this must happen. He gave us an “eternal physical body” to be of His kind. To not do so would not be “infinite love”.
He questions elsewhere, “When does the offspring not resemble the parent?”
Perhaps this question is my fangled extension of Brad’s logic, but I know the question is real in the corridor . . . “How can the Heavenly Father be loving if we would be unable to be gods just like He is?”
I believe Brad is impugning the love of the unique God I see in Scripture who did not create after His own kind. He made man and woman in His image. But we are not of His unique species.
I don’t think Brad is willing to accept this kind of divine action as love.
I’m not sure I completely agree with the way Brad words the statement in question.
I mean, you could easily refute the existence of bad in the world by using the same logic: “Also, if God is [as goo]d as many believe, then why would God, who has power to do all things and who possesses an infinite love for His children, [place us in a life of pain and hardship] when He could [give us a superior existence devoid of all evil]?”
However, I think that you are putting words in his mouth with your restatement. And I think its because you are conflating his general argument in favor of becoming Gods with this specific statement. I read it this way:
“Since God is all powerful and has a perfect love for us, then assuming that God is non-physical and that having a non-physical body is better than having a physical body, why would he consign us to an eternal existence with a lesser body?”
I think your reading of “if God really loves me” and “How can Heavenly Father be loving” both contain an impugnation of God’s infinite love whereas the original does not. The original says, if I assume these four things: God’s infinite power, God’s infinite love, God’s non-physical body, and non-physical > physical then the only logical conclusion is that God would give his children non-physical bodies. Since that is obviously not true, there must be an inconsistency in the first four assumptions.
Brad’s conclusion is that since we can all agree on the first two, and since 3 implies 4 (at least in his mind) then 3 is the only one that can be wrong. (Logically 4 could just as easily be wrong which is the case in my example about bad things in life).
But my impression is that you would agree at least with assumptions 1-3 (and maybe 4?). So you conclude that since 3 IS true, then he must be implying that either God isn’t all-powerful or doesn’t have a perfect love for us. But that doesn’t seem to me to be consistent with his statement. If God were non-physical, Brad’s logic would seem to imply that non-physical is not necessarily better than physical. Just like in my example, a life devoid of evil is not necessarily a “superior existence” (since we couldn’t learn or grow, etc).
Robert, thanks for your logic. Your welcome anytime to sharpen my fuzziness.
I can see this:
“Since God is all powerful and has a perfect love for us, then assuming that God is non-physical and that having a non-physical body is better than having a physical body, why would he consign us to an eternal existence with a lesser body?”
Now I have a question for you. Do the biblical scriptures provide answers to this why?
“Now I have a question for you. Do the biblical scriptures provide answers to this why?”
That is a good question. Posed in that manner, I think it (the original question) only brings up more questions. That is why said that I wasn’t sure that I completely agree with how Brad worded it. I don’t disagree with his intended meaning, but I take as much issue with his fuzzy logic as I took with your re-wording.
Given that caveat, the first scriptures that come to mind are Matthew 7/Luke 11. But I’m not sure that really applies because in this case, although it can be considered an issue of a gift to have a literal, physical resurrection and progression into an divine state coeternal with God, there is no need to request this particular gift. Either we’ll receive it because it is part of God’s design and we “passed the test” in mortality, or else it is a completely false concept and never was part of His plan.
My next thought was Romans 5. But after re-reading it again to make sure I had the correct reference, I think chapter 6 is probably even more to the point. Particularly verse five’s “in the likeness of his resurrection” the references to eternal life being a “gift of God” near the end of the chapter.
Now I have to assume from what you’ve said that you don’t take issue with a literal, physical resurrection (otherwise I would imagine you’d have questioned both of the last two sentences in your quote from Brad). So it would not surprise me if you don’t immediately see the connection in Romans. However, consider this: from Paul’s teaching here (and in a number of other places in the NT), we will all regain our bodies in the resurrection. Let me know if you disagree but I believe the only major mainstream religion that consistently teaches otherwise are the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Then consider his statements relating sin to death. If we are servants of sin our reward is death, if we are servants of obedience our reward is righteousness. And again, the wages of sin are death. Now, I can’t reconcile those statements with a literal death (my sins have yet to kill me, although that can’t be said of everyone and every sin), so I must conclude that he refers to some sort of spiritual death which must readily be the opposite of righteousness.
If the servants of sin and the servants of obedience both receive bodies, is the only reward that we receive (as servants of obedience) that we were righteous? That’s kind of anti-climactic. Your reward for have learned to ride a bike is that now you know how to ride a bike. Obviously, there’s something more. I don’t think it selfish that we all anticipate some reward for doing good in this life. Certainly, it is not unreasonable to think that being in the presence of God would be quite an awesome reward in and of itself.
But then comes eternity and …. nothing else?
A number of scriptures, in my mind, allude to the fact that we can become more than what we are now. In particular, I think John the Beloved had the strongest grasp (or at least made the clearest references) of this eternal destination of the righteous children of God. I think 1 John 3 alludes to this (though perhaps a little indirectly). Rev 2:7, 10 starts to get a little more precise. But then Rev 3:21 is the punchline. How can we sit down on God’s throne and still be eternally in a lesser state? And is Christ also in that lesser state, because it appears we will sit with him in the same way that he sits with the father.
Who are the kings and lords that Christ will be King of Kings and Lord of Lords over? It doesn’t really seem like a strongly divine title if it just meant the kings and lords who have claimed to reign over small portions of the very same earth that he created.
And furthermore, “He that overcometh shall inherit all things”. Of course, a simple rendering of this might be referring to simply all material things but once we are immortal and eternal, how much will we care about all material things? It seems to me that this must refer to more, particular to powers and responsibilities. Is it unreasonable to inherit in a “genetic” sense given John’s numerous previous references of sons of God and children of God? And then is “all things” a far cry form “all things that the Father hath”?
I’m sorry if this got long but I recently had a similar discussion with a friend of mine and a number of these references have been bouncing around in my head since then. His current position is somewhat agnostic on this particular subject (though he is definitely not agnostic in general). His thinking is that he doesn’t feel that he can prove or disprove it. In our last discussion, we talked a lot about John’s views and his choice of words in a number of locations and my friend concluded that because I was already biased, I easily read these scriptures to fit my viewpoint (I disagree 😉 ). He said that he agreed there was an implication of us receiving “something more” but that he couldn’t definitive conclude that that something included anything more than an eternal abundance of blessings. My counter-argument was to ask again what blessings would be of use and value to us in that eternal state?
Our conversation will continue and so I imagine I may have more to say but I think I’ve said more than enough already.
Robert, you have posed several interesting questions that I would like to work through.
In regards to the first reworded question, I have been reading in Scriptures about the God who created everything for His own good pleasure and redeems fallen man for His own name’s sake. Does Scripture ever encourage us that we will be in such an exalted position to pursue either of these things?
How could an infinite God from before the beginning of time, fashion a creature to be on equal par with Himself? And how could He even contemplate this, being a jealous God. In God’s jealousy, His greatest affections are for the spotlighting or making big His own glory. In contrast, I am most happy when I am believing, serving, and glorifying this God. Robert, God has created you and me, where are very heart mechanisms were wired to happily project Him and not ourselves. I have not been formed for self-glory. God, with no beginning, is the opposite. His actions are all ultimately to the glory of His wondrous Self.
But in Romans 1-3, we see how everything is all messed up. Mankind is falling short of giving God glory–ignoring, refusing, rejecting what they have been created to do. This results in physical death and spiritual death, a resurrected physical body (no reward in that) utterly condemned to a literal hell.
But I am thankful for the message of Romans 1-11 in answering the question on how to obtain righteousness. It involves the great transaction!
And Romans 8 has become the crown jewel for my life that in righteousness obtained through Christ, I am assured of ultimate glorification. The presence of sin will be removed forever. Throughout eternity, I will be advancing God’s own glory through my thoughts, my will, my emotions, my words, and my actions with no more wretched imperfection. My reward will be to worship God and build His Kingdom in a perfect way, forever. Finally, free from the presence of sin, just imagine what I can do with my mouth and my hands for Him throughout eternity. Life will really begin for me once I physically die.
Every reward advancing me in heaven will be for the sole purpose that I might glorify God more.
Robert, I can hardly type these things out (already accidently erased the whole post once) because I am so excited thinking about it all.
“Does Scripture ever encourage us that we will be in such an exalted position to pursue either of these things?”
I don’t think we even need to be in a exalted position to enjoy both of those things as servants, even proxies, of the Lord. As parents we participate with him in creation and by teaching and being examples we participate with him in redeeming our fallen brethren. You may object but I think we get to participate in these and many other of God’s responsibilities as part of our learning process in this (relatively short) mortal life in order to continue to perform these roles in a far greater capacity in our eternal life.
“How could an infinite God from before the beginning of time, fashion a creature to be on equal par with Himself?”
I’m not sure equal in a strictly literal sense is possible but you did bring up Romans 8; I think “joint-heirs” sums up my previous post far more succinctly than I ever could.
I have read Romans more times than I can count and often find myself going back to read it again when I only have a little time because I always seem to find something I had previously overlooked. I think I would like to meet Paul or even just hear him speak. It’s that perhaps wishing for too much.
“I will be advancing God’s own glory…”
“Every reward advancing me in heaven…”
I think you may agree (although perhaps for subtly different reasons) that these two statements are nearly equivalent. That is, we advance God’s own glory through our own progression and advancement. If you agree, then I think that by itself is more than reason to rejoice.
“Life will really begin for me once I physically die.”
At first I was inclined to agree, but I wouldn’t want to discredit the benefits and talents that this life (hard as it may be) bestows on us. However, since I don’t think you meant that, I agree.
Servants? Yes. Proxies? Hmmm. Now I am starting to think of baptisms by proxy and human saviors in the LDS temples, Robert. You must not see Old Testament prophets, priests, and kings as only imperfect, unsatisfying shadows and flannel-graph pictures pointing to the lovely and utterly unique High Priest and King, where all functions and positions meld into one. Isn’t the last great OT prophet crying, “Listen to the Word, behold the Lamb.”
Robert, I don’t deny that God’s people like Christ can pray, embrace, love, and teach; but efficacious work has solely and sufficiently been wrought through Him. In Romans, the redeemed become sons; He is the declared Son, the established Son. Though “joint-heirs” (I do savor and taste richly of this truth), we don’t possess “eternal power” nor “impute righteousness” to those helpless, “without works”. We have no strength within ourselves to enforce this particular victory shout: “even so might grace reign.” Why? because we desperately need grace even in our redeemed state. But not He! John says, “And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace.” An ever-flowing fullness, one wave after another of grace toppling over us—this will be the song of heaven, “Worthy, worthy, worthy is the Lamb” not Todd Wood as the object.
Made in God’s image, yes, we create. But our creations in comparison to God’s show contrast. God created eagles, we create 747s. God created the brain, we create computers. God created people, we create clones and robots. God created time and space. Will we be able to do this in heaven? God gives life because He is the Fount of life. He carved out eternal life for His elect. Can we?
And back to comment #5
Yes, you are right. I don’t see any connection of using this text as argumentation for “literal, physical resurrection” as a “gift of God” (neither would I see the chapter expounding on water baptism).
Paul has just stated some amazing spiritual truths at the end of chapter 5. In a parenthetical digression, he works through some things in chapters 6 & 7 lest our logic swing to some heretical extremes, before he breaks back out in chapter 8 with mountain meadows, cascading waterfalls, and flowers bursting in full bloom. My unsteady sometimes fearful heart is assured.
The beginning of chapter 6 is maintaining that a Christian can’t go back to living the old life. No-way, ho-say. With faith as the spoon to partake bountifully of God’s grace, I have been placed into, united with Christ. The old Todd Wood has been crucified. Buried. Six feet under, Robert.
So “in the likeness of his resurrection,” I am in tune with or should I say, I am vibrating to a new spiritual life in God. Right now.
And I had better believe it!
Before I sign off tonight, Robert, you would like to talk to Paul? So would I, friend. But do you think he will be telling stories to others in heaven about the time when people tried to worship him as a god?
Todd asketh:
How could an infinite God from before the beginning of time, fashion a creature to be on equal par with Himself?
Kerry:
Are you seriously proposing this is an impossibility with God, the Almighty? I wouldn’t ever be that bold personally as to say what God’s limitations are……
Kerry, it is a strong question. Let me explain. (By the way, for the moment I am over here at the vo-tech computer lab on Hitt Rd., utilizing a guest pass. About 10 young LDS elder and sister missionaries surround me on computers. This could be fun. 🙂 I need to lock them all in on this discussion.)
So does this match up logically?
An uncreated God outside of time and space and matter = a created, embodied god within time and space.
How could a created god say he or she is on equal par with the Creator God, who created all (John 1)? A created god could never unequivocally state that he or she has created all. Can the uncreated God create gods who exist uncreated?
[–Of course friends over at NCT would harrass me logically with questions for believing in such propositions like this derived from Scripture (not in exact wording but definitely intended meaning):
1.) God is infinite (The argument goes . . . But how can God can exist infinitely in absolute, unchanged essence and with no boundaries spatially in Personage?)
2.) God is omniscience (But how can God know infinity past to infinity future, especially if He allows man to be a free moral agent.)
3.) God is immutable (But doesn’t this violate personal relationship? Doesn’t this force one to believe that God is impassible and without person?)–]
So rather than logically assert my initial question, Kerry (for I believe that God is all-powerful – He can do anything He very well pleases), I would maintain that God does not create gods to be on equal par with Him because (a) He is holy–unique, and (b) His name is Jealous. Gods on equal par with the Triune God (Father, Son, and Spirit) would shatter both these concepts.
Make any sense, chief?
We are creators ourselves.
Are our children less than us because we are the creator and they are the created?
Hi Mary. Welcome to HI4LDS.
I would acknowledge myself as a sub-creator, under the ultimate Creator. God gave me the joyful and beautiful act of “procreation” with my wife, but for any of our four children born thus far–these are four miracles of God not Todd or Kristie Wood.
He is the One that fashions and forms them in the mother’s womb.
And no, my children are no less than me in the eyes of their Creator. But unfortunately, my four have the same, sinful wretched nature as their daddy. I am constantly pointing them to the Savior for their need of regeneration. A new heart needs to be created within each of them.