New Age Occult Deception -- Sterling's Reply to J.J.
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2000 12:47 PM
Subject: [keys-l] Re: Ye Are Gods -- A
Rebuttal
Here is J.J.'s reply to my critique of his treatise on "The Gods of the
Bible." My comments are interspersed below. You may go to the archives to
read his reply minus my comments.
http://www.dlc.fi/~samu3/JJArchives/JJ727.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "J J Dewey" <jjd@rmci.net>
To: "The Keys of Knowledge List" <keys-l@spiritweb.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2000 3:01 AM
Subject: [keys-l] Ye Are Gods
> Ye Are Gods
> I thought I would make a few comments on Sterling's
post. It would take a
> book to respond with completeness, but for now this will have to do.
>
> As a mater of fact I have sent him a treatise I have written explaining
my
> views on Christ and God.
That file, "Gods of the Bible" by J.J. Dewey, may be downloaded
from my site as either a Word.zip
file or as a PDF file.
> Hopefully this will answer some of his questions
> and concerns as he reads through it.
Yes, you do answer some of my questions, one of which regards whether or
not you are a servant of God, and we will see in my response below that my
conclusion is pointing ever more toward you being an instrument of Satan to
set forth a counterfeit New Age gospel to deceive the very elect (including
yourself) in the service of Satan.
> First I think he is making a good move in creating an new list for those
who
> have scripture as their main base yet are searching for the next step.
You imply here that your paradigm is the more enlightened one and that
eventually I will come to see as you do, and perhaps this "step
backward" (e.g. away from your more enlightened "Keys of
Knowledge" list) will be a good thing to help me and others like me to
sort of regroup so we can eventually take the next step of enlightenment in
your direction. We will see in my comments below in reply to your
clarifications that yours is ultimately not a direction I wish to pursue but
expose.
> As
> we can see from our exchange here communication between those with New
Age
> background and fundamentalist background are difficult and sometimes
creates
> friction and confusion.
What makes this especially difficult is that there are truths to be found
in both camps, but there are also great deceptions lurking in both camps.
> As a matter of fact I have been thinking in this direction the past
few
> days. Perhaps Sterling's move here is a manifestation of the Oneness
> Principle.
I seek and believe I receive inspiration from on high.
> In many cases the philosophy between Mormonism and New Age is not that
far
> apart.
This is true. But that is not necessarily an indication that both are
relatively as close to the truth, for counterfeits also appear very close
together. I'm not saying that Mormonism is the full truth and New Age is the
full counterfeit or lie, for what has become of Mormonism is probably as much
of a lie as what has become of the Eastern Religions now manifesting in the
west as the New Age. There is wheat to be found from both traditions. It is
the tares that concern me and which I seek to expose while embracing the
wheat.
> The difference is largely in background and how terms are defined.
And one of Satan's primary tools is to redefine words to suit his purposes,
using terms which we have come to associate with goodness, and cleverly
turning their meanings up-side-down, so that the unwitting end up calling good
evil and evil good.
> One real difference is that New Agers are willing to consider most any
> teaching whereas the Fundamentalist Christian generally will only explore
> teachings that are in harmony with his interpretation of scripture. Alas,
> if he then misinterprets scripture then he may wind up rejecting the
truth
> merely because he refuses to explore and consider new thoughts and
> doctrines.
There is a true principle. Let me just say that I believe that a
willingness to "believe all things" is an honorable trait, but that
it must be held in balance with the caveat, "and hold fast to that which
is true." "Believing" is an attribute of child-like faith and
trust, and is an attribute that God seeks for us to implement. But so also
does he expect us to use discern ment and to "hold fast to that which is
true." The "believe all things" part might be looked as a
right-brain feature, while the "hold fast to that which is true" is
a left-brain feature. We need both the mind and the heart, heaven and earth to
come together to arrive at the truth and our full potential.
> One of the main things that seems to be bothering Sterling is the New Age
> view of God to which many on the list adhere.
Correct. That is one of my primary concerns. The issue of the means of
salvation is another primary concern.
> For us to understand his
> concern we must first understand the Mormon view of man becoming God.
>
> In a nutshell Mormons believe that we all evolved from a primeval state
> called "intelligence" through some type of Spirit existence
where we were
> nurtured by God and finally we wind up here on earth in mortal bodies.
>
> The next step is to obtain immortality and move onward to become like the
> Father (and many believe Mother) God who has nurtured us through
existence.
>
> They quote Joseph Smith as saying: "God himself was once as we are
now,
> and is an exalted Man...That is the great secret...God himself, the
Father
> of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ did."
That is an accurate portrayal of the simplified version to which most
faithful Latter-day Saints (Mormons) adhere.
> Another Mormon authority said: "As man is God once was and as God is
man
> may become."
>
> They thus believe that God sits enthroned somewhere in a physical body in
> one location and is not omnipresent.
Now J.J. is departing from being accurate in his portrayal of stalwart
Mormon belief. We clearly and emphatically believe that God is omnipresent
through the light of Christ which fills all things.
A novice in the gospel is aware of scriptures such as:
"He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all
things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and
is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by
him, and of him, even God, forever and ever." (D&C 84:41)
Or: "He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all
things, in that he comprehendeth all things, that he might be in all and
through all things, the light of truth; which truth shineth. This is the light
of Christ." (D&C 88:6.)
This scripture goes on to say how he is in the sun, and the moon and the
stars and the earth, and that he was the power by which they were made,
"which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the
immensity of space-- the light which is in all things, which giveth life to
all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power
of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in
the midst of all things."
> They see His influence as being
> everywhere but not his actual presence because of confinement in a
physical> body.
Not so, see above scriptures, which are but a sampling of many that say
similar things in all the scriptures, OT, NT, BofM, etc.
> They also see the Holy Ghost as being in a human form, but having a
> spirit body.
The enlightened Mormons with whom I associate see the Holy Ghost as being
an office with a whole host of individuals who funtion in that office under
the direction of God, and who interact with man through spiritual means, from
the still small voice, to the burning in the bosom, to actual words forming in
the mind, to actual physical protection at times.
The Satanic counterpart to this is epitomized by the various occult methods
tapped into by the New Age movement. The spirits they are connecting with are
those who follow Satan. These are they who refuse the grace of Christ and who
seek to enthrone Satan as the supreme being, who functions by appeals to a
person's pride, rather than humility as God does. Pride blinds a person to
truth, whereas humility enables him to see it clearly.
> Even though he is in one body the church has never attempted
> to explain how millions of people can receive him at the same instant.
> This is nebulously explained as receiving his influence also.
That is not true. I've heard scores of very enlightening presentations both
from the mainstream and from the outcasts on this subject. The above
explanation is a sample of what you might hear in some LDS circles.
> When the scriptures teach of the oneness of God the Mormons see this as
> many Gods who are one in purpose.
True. But more specifically we speak of the oneness of the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost, which God is the only God with whom we deal, though he(/she) is
but one of an infinite number of such Gods in the universe who function in
oneness one with another.
> Thus when the Mormons hear New Agers and others speak of a universal God
> who is omnipresent they feel we do not understand the hierarchy of Gods.
No, when we hear you speak of this "powers of the universe," we
think of Satan trying to imitate God.
Satan has power indeed. He and those who follow him can perform their own
version of "miracles." He is very real, as is his power; for God has
allowed it to be so that there might be opposition in all things; though he is
the supreme God, and Satan seeks to usurp him. Satan says it is the other way
around. He functions through "the powers of the universe," and has
nothing to do with the atonement of Jesus Christ.
> When the scriptures speak of being one with God
> they [the Mormons] do not see this as a
> oneness as in one life. Instead they see being one with God as agreeing
> with the purpose of God and thinking as He thinks - a little like two
> business people who agree on the business plan.
Yes and no. Being of one purpose, yes, but we also see a connectedness that
takes place through the light of Christ for all things (good or evil) and
through the Holy Ghost (which works with those who are servants of God). There
is a oneness through this indwelling, so that God is in us and we in him.
> Thus when a Mormon reads about any metaphysical concept of God they
believe
> that we do not have the "modern revelation" that they have and
we have a
> misconstrued belief.
I take it a step further and not only call it less enlightened, but
counter-enlightened, being inspired of the evil one who seeks to take the
kingdom of our God and of his Christ.
> May I present to you the idea that it is the Mormons who are missing
> revelatory details and not the students of metaphysics?
Of course you would believe that, for you are serving a different master,
and these teams are set in opposition one with the other.
> If we take the pure teachings of Joseph Smith on the concept they are in
> complete harmony with metaphysical teachings.
Only when you wrest them to say what you want them to say and omit contexts
and other statements which clarify the whole.
> Basically enlightened (not
> all new agers are enlightened) new agers embrace the teachings of Joseph
> Smith. Here is where the two philosophies are the same.
An important tactic of deception is to present your teaching as if it is in
harmony with the true essence of something, whereas in truth there are
important distinctions that make all the difference in the world.
> "The essence of man never had a beginning and has evolved from a
primeval
> state through spiritual spheres and finally into human physical form.
> There is a being of very high estate who is as a God over this planet and
> this great being is nurturing us to be come as he is. What this being is,
> is what we will be in the far future. This being, however, is not the
> highest God. He once dwelt upon an earth like this as a mortal and had a
> God over him. This God (the one over our God) is now even higher than
the> Ancient of Days who now presides as Father God over this earth. Thus
the
> God over this planet has a god over him who has a god over him who has a
> god over him and so on up the line."
Yes, this is what we believe.
> Now the interesting thing is that the above statement could be
presented as
> either a Mormon belief or a typical metaphysical belief.
Actually that statement goes contrary to what you are saying in claiming
that we already ARE Gods in full, when in truth we are Gods in embryo. It
supports my model, not yours.
> The only
> difference is that sometimes new agers use a little different vocabulary.
> Sometimes they use "Master" instead of the word God in this
context.
I would submit that the "masters" of whom the New Age speaks are
messengers Satan, seeking to dethrone Jesus Christ and set themselves as
supreme.
> Whereas the Mormons think the New agers are lacking a piece to the
puzzle,
> the truth is the other way around, for metaphysical students already
> embrace the Mormon piece but add additional pieces.
No, the New Agers present a different teaching which does not build upon
the Mormon view but subverts it and overturns truth.
> What are these additional pieces?
>
> (1) Whereas the Mormons believe that all the Gods (Masters) are confined
to
> physical bodies (even though no revelation states this)
Here is a very important lie (whether malicious or reckless) and a crucial
distinction between the Mormon teaching and the New Age teaching. The reason
this is a crucial distinction is because the scriptures teach that Satan would
not receive a body because he rebelled against God. It is little wonder,
therefore, that the New Age teaching inspired by him would claim that the
highest gods are not confined to bodies. Curious indeed.
To defend his point, J.J. says, "No revelation states [that] the Gods
are confined to physical bodies." That is not true. Not even close. And
he should know better. Much better.
Let me cite a few examples with which even most newcomers to Mormonism are
familiar. In fact, I think it is even be part of the missionary discussions it
is so basic. I can't recall all of the scriptures we cited when I was a
missionary, but I remember memorizing the Japanese phrase that means
"never to be separated again," in reference to resurrection of the
body and the spirit: "futatabi musubi awasareru." I remember
teaching that phrase to missionaries in the Missionary Training Center where I
worked for two years.
D&C 93: (see also DC 138:17)
33 For man is spirit. The elements [e.g. matter] are eternal, and spirit
and element, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy.
34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fullness of joy.
The fullness of joy is obtained when one overcomes all things as did Christ
and inherits what he has, even as he has overcome and has inherited all that
the Father has -- who has a fullness of joy. Hence the curse of Satan being
cast out of heaven unable to obtain a body prohibits him and his followers (so
long as they choose that path) from receiving a fulness of joy.
Regarding God's body, the revelations say (and this one is in the
missionary discussions):
DC 130:22
22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son
also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage
of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.
That's pretty black and white if you ask me.
And here is one regarding Jesus Christ.
DC 130:
1 When the Savior shall appear we shall see him as he is. We shall see that
he is a man like ourselves.
The section prior to this is a discourse on how to detect supernatural
beings as being from God or from Satan. There are two kind of messengers from
God, it explains. The first is a resurrected being, who you can shake hands
with to know he is from God, for Satanic messengers have no body. The second
is the spirit of a just man made perfect who must appear in his glory, but has
not YET been resurrected. He will decline from shaking hands, for he is not
yet resurrected. A Satanic messenger will put forth his hand, but you will not
feel anything, for he has not body.
> new age revelation
> teaches that the Masters have overcome death and have power to manifest
in
> the physical, but the higher Gods (Masters) only use the physical body,
or
> form, to manifest in the lower worlds. There are higher worlds where a
> physical body is not needed and this vehicle becomes temporarily
> unmanifested to enter these formless worlds.
Again, in light of the fact that Satan and those who followed him before
the earth was created were denied receiving a body, and we are told that God
has a perfected body of flesh and bones, do you not find it beyond curious
that the New Age would set forth a "higher" God as not having a
body, whereas the scriptures teach that it there can be no fullness of joy
when the body and spirit are separated. Which god is it that is guiding the
New Age "wisdom"? It certainly is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob.
> There are three worlds of form where we manifest in a
> body of form. These are the physical (the Mormon
> telestial), the astral (terrestrial) and the worlds of mental
> matter (celestial).
>
> Now the New Age (sometimes called the Ancient Wisdom) teaches that there
> are worlds above the celestial. The interesting thing is that even though
> most Mormons believe the Celestial is the highest the Mormon scriptures
> themselves teach the same thing and states that there is a "higher
order of
> kingdoms" than the celestial. This higher order of kingdoms is
revealed in
> the teachings of Alice A. Bailey.
Which tells you where she is getting her revelations.
> (2) The Gods (Masters) are indeed one in purpose as the Mormons teach,
but
> the oneness goes beyond that. They are also part of the one life that
> pervades the universe.
"The powers of the universe" = the demonic powers of Satan.
> When the God consciousness is reached then a person
> becomes a Master of the physical world of causes and obtains an awareness
> that he is merely a cell in a greater body which is the One True God.
Yes, when a New Agers attains this 'enlightenment' he has become a disciple
of Satan and is now one with him and communes with him through such means as
described by the New Age -- channeling, mediumship, ouige boards, astrology,
clairvoyance, crystals etc..
Absent from their equation is Jesus Christ our Savior. Rather, they
redefine him into the epitome Messiah of the New Age, an arch master and
wayshower, who has but superficial resemblance with the true Christ set forth
in the Bible. They pick and choose scriptures out of context that support
their up-side-down paradigm and disregard the rest, especially the part about
the atonement and his sacrifice for the sins of the world. They dethrone Jesus
Christ, the Savior, and replace themselves as God and as having the saving
power within them.
> All of us are a part of the body of God, but we do not realize it. When
we
> do obtain this "higher consciousness" then we consciously
become aware of
> other cells in the body and the body of God as a whole to an evolving
> extent.
This is true of the body of Christ as it is of the body of Satan.
> If one were of such consciousness that he could be aware of the whole
body
> of God he would have to leave the physical body far behind. This is also
> verified by Joseph Smith:
> " Wherefore, no man can behold all my works, except he behold all my
glory;
> and no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain in the flesh on
> the earth." Moses 1:5
There is a huge difference between the earthly "fleshly" body,
this tabernacle of clay that is fallen (as part of the glorious plan of God),
in comparison to the glorified "body" of one who has been
resurrected.
Mortality, the fallen state of man, by its very purpose of testing requires
that the veil be drawn. Once one is resurrected, the veil is removed
completely. What this scripture is saying that once a person has beheld all
the glory of God, they can no longer reside as a mortal, for the probationary
nature of mortality is removed. We mortals are all in this together (as part
of the glorious plan), and it would be "cheating" for us to have one
who has thus been enlightened to come back and tell us how everything works.
We are supposed to figure things out by learning to commune with the heavens
while yet encumbered in the flesh. It is an integral part of the purpose of
mortality.
To have someone who has beheld the full glory of God return and tell us
what he found would be like sitting in the middle of a test in school and
having a student walk into the classroom and read all the answers to the
students. The teacher would kick such a student out of the class, and
rightfully so.
That is what that statement of Joseph Smith was about.
It is not a validation as J.J. claims that once a certain degree of
enlightenment is attained that the body is left behind.
> Such a consciousness would be so high that one would have to leave behind
> the idea of manifesting in physical form again on not only this earth,
but
> any earth. The only way for such a master to so manifest again would be
to
> lose his memory and identity of his high consciousness.
Yes and no. Yes a God incarnating in the flesh must have the veil put over
him(/her) like everyone else. No, J.J.'s statement does not take into account
the glorified resurrected body that is attained by virtue of Jesus Christ's
resurrection. This body is like the one in the flesh, but glorified, and there
is no veil for such a being.
> (3) The thing that really bothers Mormons (as well as most standard
> Christians) about their view of God is the belief that we are gods right
> now; whereas Mormons believe we are becoming Gods.
Exactly. That is the rub, for it is like a child saying he is an adult by
virtue of the adult DNA he has in him and that he knows what to do and doesn't
need the adult's help (e.g. the atonement of Jesus Christ). It is foolishness,
prideful, precocious, and damning.
> Let us again substitute
> the word "Master" for God and then we see that both camps
believe that we
> are becoming Masters (Gods) and eventually we will become like the Master
> (Father God) that presides over this planet.
Note the little trick with words, redefining their meaning, and putting a new
twist on them so that they appear innocuous but are indeed blasphemous. When I
speak of "God," I think of a glorified, resurrected being, who has
overcome all things and who presides over this planet and whose spirit
children we are. And that is what most every Mormon has in mind when they
think of God. The Christian version is a little different, but still the same
in the essential element that God is omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, just,
merciful, etc. That is God. God represents perfection. God represents one who
has overcome and who is exalted. God is worthy of our praise, for he created
us, he nurtures us, in him we have breath and life and learning and growing.
He picks us up when we fall. He forgives us when we sin. He inspires us when
we seek. I have no problem whatsoever praising and adoring this majestic being
who presides over us. I have no problem submitting to God as a child submits
to his father.
My perception is that New Agers have no sentiment whatsoever, but that they
find this notion of God to irritate them to the max. They are rebellious
children who do not appreciate what Jesus did for them, who fight against the
gift of his son, and set themselves up as god instead.
It is the height of blasphemy. It is totally Satanic.
> When a metaphysical student says he is God or one with God Mormons have
to
> realize that this is a totally different doctrine than the Mormon concept
> of Man becoming God, but completely in harmony with it.
It is very different. It appeals to the ego, it redefines the term, it plays
into the hands of Satan
> The metaphysical concept is actually more in harmony with the teachings
of
> Joseph Smith than the Mormons are.
Only when you redefine Joseph Smith, take statements out of context, ignore
most of the rest of what he said like you do with Jesus Christ.
> He said over and over that if a thing has a beginning it must, as God
> lives, have an end and if something did not have a beginning then it will
> have no end. There is no such thing as a beginning with no end. See
> History of the Church Vol. 6; pg 311
>
> Therefore according to Joseph Smith "as God lives" if there is
a beginning
> to being a God there will be an end. I know of no Mormon who teaches
this,
> but to not do so is to disagree with their founder.
I already pointed out my agreement with the teaching of Joseph Smith that we
are co-eternal with God and hence also do not have a beginning. But within
that co-eternal existence are various stages of development. Though we have
the full set of God DNA from the very beginning, the unfolding of that DNA
through the various developmental stages is a gradual process, involving many
different steps, just as a child unfolding from two cells to a fully matured
adult passes through many different phases.
So in this sense, there is not a "beginning," nor will there be
an end. This teaching does not invalidate my model at all, nor does it
strengthen yours, for in your model as well, there are different levels
(seven) to which one ascends. Is there not in that sense a
"beginning" when that level is first achieved, and thus would be and
end? Your argument twisted to discredit the Mormon model discredits your own
equally well.
> The only way we can be gods forever is if we have already been gods
> forever. As a cell in the body of the Eternal God we realize this is true
> when we gain a realization that we are a reflection (in the image) of God
> and have always existed as co-equal with the one God.
This is in the God-DNA sense, that we all have within us the same set of
God DNA but are in different phases of its manifestation, and like the child
who says he is an adult, we err to say we ARE God when we have not yet fully
manifested the God DNA that is in us.
> This is in harmony with another statement of Joseph which most Mormons
> ignore or believe he misspoke: "The mind or the intelligence which
man
> possesses is co-equal with God himself. I know my testimony is
true."
> History of the Church Vol. 6; pg 310
Again you are wrong. I've never not believed this. I've never encountered
an enlightened Mormon who knows of this statement but says he disbelieves it.
Furthermore, in the Mormon culture (in its current apostate form), if you
don't believe something a Mormon prophet said, you had better just keep your
mouth shut or you will be perceived as an apostate. The only context I can
imagine where such refutation might have happened would be in your own case
when perhaps you were confronting a church authority and he, not knowing his
stuff, may have waffled on the issue.
> If our intelligence is then "co-equal" with God this doctrine
is indeed in
> harmony with the ancient wisdom which teaches that man is
"co-equal" with
> God and as such has always been God. We are just Gods who do not realize
> who we really are.
Again, God-DNA is indeed in all of us, but we are not fully manifested
until we overcome all things, which requires the atonement of Jesus Christ.
> This agrees with both the old and new testament. First David said:
> "Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."
Psalms 82:6
Yes, I believe that this is a correct interpretation of why he said this --
that the poet was pointing to this concept that each of us have in us the
potential to become God and because that God-DNA is in us now, in a VERY loose
sense of the word we could be classified as gods now, kind of like a child is
part of the "human" family, though not yet an adult.
> Finally arrogant young Jesus angered the Jews by teaching the oneness of
> God and man. As they tried to stone him he asked them what he had done
> wrong. They answered: "For a good work we stone thee not; but for
> blasphemy; and because that thou being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus
> answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said Ye are gods? If he
> called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture
cannot
> be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into
> the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"
(John
> 10:33-36)
I agree that in this context, this concept of man being co-eternal with God
(having the God DNA) and capable of developing into God himself is what Jesus
had in mind when he cited this scripture.
> The angry Jews immediately saw here that the doctrine that man and God
are
> one means that man is God.
I doubt that they saw this at all. And I believe the point he was making
was, Yes, he is God, but that this is our destiny as well, for we have within
us the God DNA. The scriptures indeed teach that Jesus is a pattern for what
we can accomplish too. I've compiled a list of Biblical scriptures that talk
about "man, potential to become God."
http://www.greaterthings.com/Topical/even_as_I_am.htm
Jesus' alluding to this at that time probably went right over their heads.
The only thing that lingered in their minds was that Jesus was yet saying he
was the Son of God, for he literally was, just as we spiritually are and can
also eventually realize the full manifestation of that potential.
In the next verse he said, "Say ye of him whom the Father hath
sanctified, and sent him into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I
am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if
I do, though ye believe not in me, believe the works: that ye may know, and
believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him."
Notice that he equated his state as being one with the Father, and that
this was manifest by the manner of person that he was and the fruits he
produced. In other words, he was no child saying, "I am an adult."
He was God in the flesh, as the scriptures say. He overcame all things, as we
should too, which when we do, we will inherit what he has.
> They called this blasphemous just as many
> religious people today still do. Jesus, however, courageously rebuked
them
> and reminded them that men were called Gods in the Old Testament
scriptures
> and the scripture "cannot be broken".
For those who do not have their scriptures opened in front of them and who
are not familiar with the scriptures, I will point out that Jesus does not yet
again make another statement, followed by the reminder that the scripture
"cannot be broken." J.J. is merely recapping what he already said,
and emphasizing it by putting a capital G on "gods." Where he is not
fully truthful is in saying "men were called Gods in the Old Testament
scripture," with the implication that this was a sort of theme that came
up from time to time. In reality, there is but one other place where the
phrase "ye are gods" is found, Isaiah 41:23. It says, "Show the
things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye [are] gods. . .
."
I should also point out that the Mormon's love this scripture in Psalms and
use it often to support their unusual doctrine that "As God is, man may
become."
It reads in full, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are
children of the most High."
This does not contradict but supports the Mormon model which teaches that
we have God DNA (my words).
> This kind of talk only infuriated the Jews more and Jesus had to escape
for
> his life from the midst of their anger.
>
> Notice the scriptures says: "Ye are Gods," not "ye shall
become Gods."
That is right, and the context of this verse, Psalms 82:6, shows God
beckoning for man to realize his potential and stop behaving like brute
creatures.
> Jesus realized that we are indeed created in the image of God and as such
> are already like our creator
Wait a minute. Hold on here. "Already like our creator"?
That is not what the scriptures teach, and that is not what Jesus had in
mind. This is a primary and fatal flaw of the New Age teaching, for in saying
we ARE God, as if we have already achieved the full stature, they circumvent
the atonement of Jesus Christ by which we overcome and achieve such status.
Man is hardly "already like his creator." Rather, the scriptures
teach that "the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the
fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings
of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint
through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive,
meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the
Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his
father." (Mosiah 3:19.)
Elsewhere we learn that this submission to God as a child to its Father is
for our refinement and purification.
"Every branch [in Christ] that beareth fruit, he [God] purgeth it,
that it may bring forth more fruit.]" (John 15:2.)
> which creator of our original intelligence is> the One God beyond
time and Space and as reflections we have within us all
> the attributes of the original one God, even though this is unrealized by
> normal human consciousness.
The huge catch here is "even though this is unrealized." The New
Agers interpret "unrealized" as a forgotten thing, as though we once
were Gods but forgot and need but remember and claim our former glory. In
truth, "unrealized" means "not yet developed," like the
child who has the DNA of an adult, but who has not yet fully developed into
what that DNA eventually is capable of, which is an adult (God, in our
metaphor), reproducing to bring forth others after their image. The DNA is not
created anew, for the DNA which the parents pass on to their child is but the
DNA they got from their parents, with some unique twists, to create a unique
individual
> Perhaps, if Jesus were here with us now he would say again: "ye are
Gods,"
> but add: "and ye are becoming Masters by knowing God which is
knowing
> yourself."
Nope, that is Satan's line, as epitomized by the man of sin, the son of
perdition, who is not just one person in the latter-days (though there will be
one in particular), but is a type of many such individuals who will make such
a statement, such as the New Agers.
"So that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that
he is God." (II Thes. 2:4.)
To become God, one must obey the principles of the gospel as set forth by
Jesus Christ, our Savior and Redeemer, outside of whom there is no salvation.
He stands at the gate, and he employs no servant there. He is the door. There
is no other way.
The arrogance of saying one already IS god is of Satan and will lead one
into his captivity to be used by him to carry forth his work of thwarting the
work of God.
He seeks the kingdom of our God and his Christ. He wants to be the one who
is worshipped. He is setting up his kingdom on the earth, which has both a
religious and a government manifestation. The New Age teachings epitomize his
counterfeit gospel to deceive the very elect. But Christianity and its more
advanced manifestation, Mormonism, likewise have produced counterfeit truths,
which lead souls away from the truth.
If orthodox Judaism, for example, epitomizes the rigid analytical extreme
of Western religion, I would venture to say the New Age epitomizes the
free-wheeling believe anything you download from the ether extreme of Eastern
religion. I would dare say that the balance between East and West will look as
little like New Age as will look like orthodox Judaism. The tares have
flourished in the New Age, though certainly there is yet wheat to be gleaned
here and there.
May we be ever vigilant in this day of the separation of the wheat from the
tares to recognize that there are tares which the enemy has sown and be able
to discern them by placing our faith in God and his plan of salvation, as a
child submits to its father.
Sincerely,
Sterling D. Allan
See also:
