Post what you want. Your posts aren't annoying anyone. I'm looking forward to your response.
Alright then. Here goes!
Heads up. If you're not interested in the doctrinal discussion, feel free to skip this novel of a post.
Two caveats before I get started. One, I just want to point out to those who haven’t been paying attention, with the exception of one citation towards the end of this post, I have only cited to the Bible to support what I’ve written. I could obviously be even clearer in what I’m explaining if I were to use passages from the Book of Mormon and other LDS scripture, but I’ve purposely chosen to limit my resources so as to allow anyone that wishes to rebut the benefit of only having to refer to the Bible. I’d love for someone to read the Book of Mormon, but I’m not going to hold my breath on that one.
Anyway, my point is, hopefully it pretty obvious by now that the LDS church does believe the Bible to be important scripture, just not the only scripture.
Second, I do not speak for the church. I believe what I’ve written to be accurate, but I make this caveat because official statements from the LDS church on these subjects are so infrequent that I’m not 100% sure if what I’m telling you is wholly in line with official church doctrine or if some of what I’ve written is simply commonly accepted conjecture; not supported by any official church doctrine. If you want to know what the LDS church teaches without my own interjections and speculations please go to lds.org. Which brings me to my first side note.
First, I find it funny that you've chosen to research, yet have elected not to go to the official LDS church site (lds.org). I don't mean that to be a personal attack, just a commentary on what virtually every person does. If you want to know about something go to the source instead of second and third hand sources. If it was unintentional, that's fine and I apologize, but if it was deliberate, oh well.
As for the first question, I’m pretty sure the statement most people are up in arms about was in a couplet written by Lorenzo Snow when he wrote, "As man is God once was, and as God is man may become." While there have been other similar statements from other prophets, this puts it as about as clear and succinct as any. While it's definitely a unique concept to
modern Christianity, it isn't novel to Christianity. There are many early Christian scholars that discuss this concept. Admittedly, I don't know much about these people, but take it for what it's worth:
St Iraneus from the second century was an orthodox founding father of Christianity.
"Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High."...For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality." -- St Irenaeus,
Against Heresies
St Athanasius from the 4th century the person that the Athanasius creed is named after has this to say in
De Inc. -- "The Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods....Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life.", "He became man that we might be made divine"
Not that he's a religious scholar, but this is interesting too:
Finally CS Lewis,
The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses -- "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship.", In
Mere Christianity -- "The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were 'gods' and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him - for we can prevent Him, if we choose - He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what he said."
Anyway, as it relates to the doctrine the idea comes from verses like the following:
Romans 8:16-17 - (16) The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (17) And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if it so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
Psalms 82:6 - "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."
John 10:33-36 - (33) The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest theyself God. (34) Jesus answered them, Is it not written in you law, I said, Ye are gods? (35) If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; (36) Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sactified, and sent into the world, Thou blaspemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"
2 Corinthians 3:18 - "But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord."
I think where most people get bent out of shape over this (or where I'd at least understand why people get bent out of shape over it) is if we were saying that we will be equal with God. That's not the case. God will always be God to us; we just have the potential to be like him. We believe that we are the literal spiritual children of God as the above versus seem to indicate. If that's the case, then at least a portion of us is made up of "god material." Call it good genetics if you will. So we are, in fact, capable of becoming like God because he's given us a part of himself. To me, this is the obvious natural result of eternal progression. This isn't an over night thing, but the more we become like God (which is the goal of every Christian as I understand it) the closer we become, well, like God.
This is personal speculation, but after we're resurrected, are we going to be sitting around playing harps on clouds all day for all eternity? That would be pretty boring. Are we going to be eternally praising God in a never ending church service? I don't think God is so vain as to require such a thing. I'd bet we're going to be substantially the same things we're doing right now. There will be some big differences, sure, but we'll still be learning and growing and progressing to the point that maybe, after eons of time has passed we might have progressed to the point that we're capable of being perfect without Christ's atonement.
I'm going to make this perfectly clear. The teachings of the LDS church speak only of potential to being gods as a result of our divine heritage and lots and lots of time. It has nothing to with usurping power and authority from God. Personally, I believe it to be true, but it doesn't bother me a bit if someone else doesn't. It's not really worth debating. It's really not something that's discussed much at all in official meetings. I'd be content just living in God's presence, but as with any loving earthly father, I wouldn't be surprised if our Heavenly Father wanted for his children to be something more than simple followers. He'd want us to be better than he is (although that's obviously not possible in this case). Granted, that places a very mortal personality on God, but I don't see how that's contrary to the Bible; unless you believe God has no emotions or personality, but that's a whole 'nother topic.
As for the life on other planets thing, this is discussed even less frequently than the first thing. That clip (which I’ve seen many times) is actually probably the most I've ever heard someone speak on it in one sitting and that part of the video was maybe 2 minutes.
Side note, another observation of mine is that I doubt many people could even tell me what he said from the 2:30 mark onward. They focus on the sensational instead of the real focus of the message which is the centrality of Christ to our salvation. Relisten to the video and see if anything other than the statement about the creation of multiple worlds contradicts common Christian beliefs.
Anyway, I can't think of any Biblical verses that discuss it at the moment, but there's a scripture from the book of Moses 1:33-35 (part of LDS scripture) that states, (33) "And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. (34) And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many. (35) But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them." So yeah, we believe other worlds were created, but so what? What does that have to do with anything other than that we're not alone in the universe? Seems a little presumptuous to believe God didn't create other worlds just because he didn't explicitly say he did in the Bible. It's not important to our salvation, so who really cares? It's just more of a "Huh, that's cool." thing, and that's how it's treated in the LDS church. However, on a personal note, it does seem to make sense. If God is eternal and has always existed and always will exist can we honestly believe this is the only earth He's created and ever will create? That would be a boring eternity for Him if this is all He's done and will do.
As I've said, I don't mind answering questions, but from my experience simply explaining the "weirdest" of LDS doctrines or teachings doesn't really help someone understand the LDS church teachings or its members. It's a milk before meat principle to me. If you don't understand the basic tenants of the LDS church you have no chance of really understanding the more abstract ideas. You may think you do, but you really don't. That is why I think many LDS people are hesitant to discuss these types of outlier issues. I don’t think they are ashamed of what they believe or are trying to hide it (then again maybe they are or many they don’t believe it), but I think they understand that these types of ideas are likely to get twisted or distorted or not fully understood because if you don’t have a solid foundation you won’t be able to stand when the winds and rains come (See Matthew 7:24-27). Additionally, if you don't believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet then you have no reason to believe the Book of Mormon is scripture or anything else the LDS church teaches. So yeah, Joseph Smith is kind of a big deal. He's not God or Christ, so we certainly do not worship Joseph, but he's a pretty important person. That's why when missionaries teach people about the LDS church one of the first things they do is ask you to read the Book of Mormon so you can feel the spirit that comes from reading it and then do what James directs us to do (and what Joseph did because he read it in James): 1:5-6 "(5) If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. (6) But let him ask in faith, nothing waivering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed."
I'll repeat what I've said before, these concepts are rarely the focus of any lesson or sermon given. In fact, I bet a large percentage of LDS members wouldn't be able to explain the ideas coherently. There is no sinister secret reason for this, it's just not the focus of our faith. Whether I have the potential to be as God is or if there are other planets with people on them have no relevance on my personal salvation. It's cool to think about, but really makes no difference in what I need to do to be saved. Faith in Christ, repentance through the atonement of Christ, Baptism for the remission of sins, and the reception of the Holy Ghost are the gateway to the straight and narrow path that leads to eternal life. And then there's temple stuff, but that's a subject for another time.
Hopefully that wasn't too much in one post...
