Leaderboard

A few questions to consider: Where in LDS scripture is the phrase "become a god" found? (Hint: Nowhere) What does it mean to "be a god"? If it makes a difference, capitalize the G before answering. In what sense are we expected to become as God is? What does that mean, exactly? What is the glory of God? Can God's glory be shared? Can it be taken by another? What is the difference between God's glory and God's honor? What exactly was the rebellious Satan trying to take from God? Describe a scenario where such a thing (procuring God's honor by taking it from Him) even makes sense, not merely semantically, but philosophically. As with many seemingly "deep" questions, this issue cannot even be addressed until we define our verbal tokens sufficiently that we can manipulate them in a rational way. Once we sufficiently define those tokens such that the situation they describe becomes meaningful, the answer is likely to reveal itself in a pretty straightforward manner. Until then, we cannot even know if the question has any real-world meaning. "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" makes perfect sense grammatically, but not semantically. It proposes a meaningless situation that exists only because of wordplay and the rules of grammar, then demands we take that situation seriously. But we cannot, because it is not a serious situation. It is meaningless, like "colorless green ideas sleep furiously". (For further development of this particular part of investigating the topic, see Gõdel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter. Seriously, if you're willing to put the effort in, you'll learn a great deal.) As a general life rule, I believe that many of our questions can be approached only after we grasp the fundamental elements of those questions, not merely in a grammatical sense, but semantically, epistemologically, and hermeneutically. Until then, we are small children pondering how to solve a differential equation. We're just scrawling crude pictures on a whiteboard covered with equations, carelessly and vacuously kicking words around without actually addressing anything meaningful.

I see you've cited Isaiah 42:8 a couple of times now. After trying hard to follow your argument about how LDS exaltation somehow violates what's laid down there, I still don't see it. Isaiah's statement is indeed profound, but then, so is as Romans 8:16-17: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." The notion of exaltation is little more than the notion that we should read the scriptures a tad more literally than trinitarian creedal Christianity does. I figure Paul meant what he said here, and so does the Spirit. We are not just broken creations reliant on our Creator's grace, we are the literal offspring of deity. Our Father in heaven is literally just that - our Father. And children grow up. I am totally fine that you and yours see things differently. Very happy to share this earth with folks who think different thoughts than I about the nature of God and our relationship to Him. I don't see the point in arguing who is right or wrong, whose concept is more or less supported, more or less refuted with this or that scripture. In the decades I've been paying attention to the debate, I've almost never seen anyone budge from their opinion based on argumentation or apologetics. I've seen faiths evolve and beliefs change over time, and I've witnessed people starting in one camp and experiencing a huge growth in spiritual understanding and end up in the other camp. And I've seen them pass each other on such journeys. You're not my first "I started LDS and then grew my way into trinitarian Christianity" person I've met. And I've also met plenty of "I started some other kind of Christian or Jew and then grew my way into the restored gospel of Jesus Christ" people. If there's going to be a winner before Christ's second coming, I doubt it will occur based on discussions such as the one you've started in this thread. After all, people have been having variations of this discussion for almost 200 years, and matters haven't been settled. This isn't exactly logarithmic growth where we can plot a point where every human is converted. But it is certainly a firm statement that we've heard the best creedal Christianity has to offer, evaluated your best arguments about the nature of God, and every year more and more of us find better answers, more in line with what the Spirit witnesses to us, in the Church of Jesus Christ. Glad you're here @fiddle tenders. What is a fiddle tender, anyway? Someone who plays with their chicken tenders, or someone who takes care of a musical instrument, or something else?

Would you be so kind as to interact with the response given in page 1? I've wrestled with the concept of infinity. This notion got me too: Imagine an infinite hotel with infinite hotel rooms, each room with it's own unique number (Room 1, room 2, room 3, forever.) Each room is already filled to capacity. No vacancy. Someone shows up wanting a room. The hotel owner simply asks every existing resident to move down one room. The people in room 1 move to room 2, and the room 2 people have already gone to room 3, which was vacated by people who went to room 4, etc. That leaves room 1 empty, so the new folks get an empty room. So yeah, an all-glorious God with all the glory, can always fit in a bit more Glory and still be all glorious.

And here's @mikbone with a countering LDS view that I think is as valid as any other. And it demonstrates that unless we can define [glory] in terms that each and every one of us understands perfectly and identically, we could well be talking past one another. I'm perfectly OK with [God's glory just is, and is perfect and "full"] (I'm really unsure what "glory" means in this view). I'm also OK with @mikbone's description of God's glory lying in all God does, and thus it expands forever (to his kingdom there is no end (Luke 1:33)). Indeed, Abraham 3:26 is interesting: If glory is continually added, it would seem there is no limit to the amount of glory one can have. That makes a lot of sense with @mikbone's definition. IMO, we're toying with things we cannot yet understand. Interesting discussion perhaps, but not one we should expect to resolve or fully understand in this life. (I also suspect God is chuckling at the silly children trying to understand things they're not able to understand.)

That’s adorable bro.

Well, let's take a look at these verses: Forgive me, but it certainly sounds like "glory added upon our heads forever and ever." So, why do you find it objectionable? Context matters. That last phrase which you ignored gives a new perspective to the verse, does it not? The "glory" spoken of here is not the vague notion of power or radiating light. It is the worship/love/devotion that we offer to the Lord and none else. We do not worship idolatrous gods. It may take some understanding of the Hebrew writing style. But phrases like this are used by repeating the same idea in different words to clarify & emphasize. If that is the meaning of glory (you brought up the citation) then it CAN increase as more people worship Him.

I am also saying that His creations, and so this aspect of His glory, also increases. There are quantitative (His numbered creations, e.g., Psalms 147:4) and qualitative (His delight) aspects to His glory. We can use semantics to say His glory does not change, and also that it does, depending on context and personal frame of reference. The teachings of the Church offer both contexts. For me, this does not imply an incompleteness in His nature but the perfect balance of eternal glory within His nature consistent with the reconciling Atonement of Christ that was set from before the foundation of the world. Christ appeared in various degrees of glory in the transfiguration, His daily life and crucifixion, His resurrected appearance to many and in suddenly appearing to the eleven, in His His ascension and as Stephen and Paul saw him. We have the Old Testament examples as well, seen by prophets in the flesh and in vision. The “essence of God’s glory,” which I take to mean the inherent, infinite beauty, worth, and grandeur stemming from all His perfections of course does not change in that the word “glory” does not change, except when a particular subjective context or paradigm changes its meaning. This is where the relationship with God and the Gift of the Holy Ghost are essential: the relationship is subjective and something we can only experience within ourselves and try our best to describe and show outwardly. The framework you have embraced, which you describe as biblical, is contained within the Church’s teachings that recognize the same distinctions but do not render them mutually exclusive. Whatever framework you grew up in, I encourage you to hold on to the light you have since received as it will lead you to greater light. ETA: I just realized you equate "glory" with "nature" -- I do not see God's nature changing but I do not equate "nature" with "glory". His nature is glorious by accommodating glory in the ways I described.

The verses you shared under #1 teach that God has glory and does as He pleases. Can you provide scriptures that teach that God cannot and does not increase in glory? He delights in His Son; in those who love Him; in acts of kindness, justice, and righteousness; the prosperity of His people; the prayers of His people; His steadfast love and mercy; in the humble and lowly, and other things. He delights in so many things, is that delight not compounded when these things increase in the earth and in heaven? A paradigm shift would reset a relationship with Christ so that living faithfully is not to attain exaltation per se but to love Christ. When that is done, everything promised in the plan of happiness sa set forth in the Restored Gospel falls into its proper place and order.

You should have listened to more Elder Maxwell growing up. He does the best job I know of teaching God's omniscience, that God is not ever-learning or increasing in knowledge. Lectures on Faith also teach this well (though not considered formal doctrine, just a method of teaching doctrine that was perhaps incomplete). Just because we believe that we ignorant mortals can progress and increase in every way does not mean we believe God Himself is incomplete. Quite the opposite. Maybe you had to step away in order to learn and incorporate these things, but these things are the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. There is no conflict here. Now, that said, after having read through all your replies, I see a repeating theme: In this thread, [current you] has been countering [past you]. Every time one of us says something about what the Church teaches, you stuff it into the box of what [past you] believed (to some degree or another). You are, in the same thread, both justifying the conclusions [past you] came to (reinforcing that the Church / your teachers did indeed teach [past you] what [past you] concluded) and decrying those conclusions as wrong (as evidenced by the experiences and understanding of [current you]). My mother had passed away by the time I realized that [what I learned] was not necessarily [what she was trying to teach]. Understanding that can help one let go of old falsehoods. I can also related to having been taught things that were wrong, or having been taught in misleading ways, or just poorly. Discovering later that what you learned isn't right (regardless of how it got into your head) can be painful, perhaps even traumatic. I sympathize with anyone having the rework long-held beliefs into a more correct framework. That's a huge part of mortality, BTW. Or at least, I have so concluded. Regardless, I hope [current you] is able to forgive [past you] and [past you]'s teachers, and that [current you] can draw ever closer and closer to Jesus Christ. He is the only way.

Welcome, Fiddle. That is quite a long post. Forgive me if I only address a few items. Is a marraige transactional? It certainly can be. But how can you tell the difference? How many of us would look at a happy couple and determine that their marriage is just a legal transaction wherein shared property is utilized for better economy in the siring of offspring so they can be raised into adulthood to take care of us in our old age? Do I work 50 to 60 hr/wk so my wife will have sex with me and clean my house? That would be transactional. It would be cheaper if I just went around clubbing. Do I sire and raise children and care for them because I'm hoping they will take care of me in my old age? I have an iRA and an HSA. That's a whole lot cheape While we certainly "do" things for each other, marriage is about a relationship. All these things we do in a healthy marraige are motivated by love, cooperation, a sense of teamwork, and a sincere desire to adhere to correct principles. We do this out of a sense of love and a desire to be happy. On the flip side, what can be said of a couple who are always fighting? What about a couple who is ok with simply living together so they can get government benefits for fatherless homes? So, if you think of commandments as "jumping through hoops" you completely misunderstand the purpose of commandments (or ordinances, for that matter). I've been pondering this for a while -- whether I agreed or disagreed. And while I get the point you're "trying" to make (at least I've made an honest effort at it) I disagree with your assessment here. It has some incorrect assumptions. it is not "grace that drives the relationship." We form an initial relationship. And that relationship grows. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong: You seem to say that the Restored Gospel tells us that we "earn heaven" by our obedience. No. There is no way we can "earn" our way to heaven. It is not about paying a certain debt. Only Christ can do that. And He has. So, what is left for us? For most of the protestant world, it is just about "believing in Christ." Yes and no. What exactly do we mean by believing in Christ? Or the more common wording I hear from evanglicals "accept Christ into your heart." That sounds great and all. But if you were to try to define that, what does it entail? It is not about jumping through hoops. It is not about checking off the boxes. It is about "becoming." When my children were young, I raised and taught them to do some things "because it's good for you." One cannot teach a 6 year old about vitamins, minerals , polyphenos, flavinoids, etc. You just tell them it's good for you. Only after they've matured sufficient to understand, do I explain the principles behind it all. The idea is that we obey commandments at first because we want to be obedient. We want to be obedient because we love God. And eventually, we understand the principle and internalize it. Then we begin to see the wisdom in the commandments. It was the obedience that changed us. When we obey commandments becuase they are commandments, we eventually become the people who can now understand the reasons for the commandments. And when we understand, we are happy we obeyed our of our love and respect for the Lord. So, the proper sequence is: Hope helps us recognize the goodness and wisdom of God. Faith & Charity provide the motivating force to obey commandments. When we obey, we receive the Holy Ghost and wisdom to understand why commandments are so important. Then we go through another cycle with full understanding. This is called growth. IOW, we become the children the Lord is raising us to be. It is not the act that saves us. We tend to emphasize obedience to commandments because in our childhood we do not obey because of understanding. It is our love of Christ that provides the desire to obey. The thing that most protestants will accuse us of is simply checking the boxes. No. And action without faith is vain. It has no meaning. Faith without works is dead. It's just words with no meaning. Faith-based obedience allows us to grow. Many believe we are a religion that believes works (ordinances) will save us. That's completely antithetical to our core doctrines. Others believe that we receive grace in our ignorance. No. Salvation comes from choosing Christ. And we cannot faithfully choose something we know nothing about. Infinity is a difficult concept. In mathematics: ∞ + 1 = ∞. Also: ∞ + ∞ = ∞. That is a basic law of mathematics. Does it increase? If we said it grows or doesn't grow, we'd be right either way.

Welcome to the forum, these are just some thoughts of mine: As most Non-LDS Christians are trinitarians, I'll make an assumption you probably are too (please correct me if I'm wrong), a God with no passions, no substance, no beginning or end who exists outside of time, outside of the physical reality, there is no way we could possibly comprehend his personal glory. But the glory we 100% can comprehend is the role of God in saving us, and giving us eternal life. In that way I don't think Moses 1:39 is contradictory to a trinitarian world view in any way, because if the trinity is truly so incomprehensible and the father so difficult to understand, in what other ways can we begin to comprehend his glory, than through his influence in our lives? I think likewise with LDS theology, my capacity for eternal life doesn't make Heavenly Father more glorious, his glory comes from the fact that this even possible in the first place. I think if you flip the issue on its head, does the casting out of Satan and the sons of perdition make Heavenly Father 33.3% less glorious because a third of the hosts of heaven were cast out during the grand council, and so will never receive a resurrected body? I think not. The fact he has given us the opportunity, and holds the authority is what makes him glorious. My second thought: I totally and utterly agree. Genesis 1:26, we are made after the likeness of God, in his image, our capacity to receive eternal life, reflects his glory to grant it.

I am echoing what others have said, but at it's root I think you have a misunderstanding of precisely what God's Glory is, and exactly what it means to increase it. I think part of the issue is the use of "increase" as that word can have 2 different meanings applied here. Firstly though, I will echo what @zil2 said. The verse you quote do not on my reading suggest that God's glory cannot increase. Now I do not believe any verse of scripture is so obvious in it's meaning that there is zero chance of misunderstanding, but I would not have drawn the conclusions you did from these verses. Isaiah 42:8 – “I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.” - My reading would be that God is making clear that nobody is able to take His place, and idols cannot replace Him. This is to me a testament of the Supremacy of God and not the self sufficiency of His Glory. Isaiah 6:3 – “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!” - This to me reads the the Glory of God reaches every part of the world, not making any comment on it's completeness or impossibility to increase. Only that it is inescapable. John 17:5 – “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” - This verse emphasises to my eyes the primacy of the Glory of God. It existed before the world was made. Again no comment on it's sufficiency, increase etc Psalm 115:1-3 – “Not to us, O LORD, not to us, but to your name give glory, for thy mercy and for thy truth's sake. Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God? Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.” - These to me speaks of some reason to Glorify God. That he is in heaven and not missing or a false idol. It also seems though, in the first section, that our praise of God in some way gives him glory. From this I feel the rest of your argument fails as I am unconvinced by the first premise. But back to "increase". Even if one were to believe that God is all sufficient etc as described, it would be impossible to deny that as God creates more beings there will inevitably be more beings that worship Him. His Kingdom becomes greater in size and scope as it includes more people and places. If God makes a world then there is another world in His Kingdom. By that logic His Glory is on a practical sense covering more and so much be greater in size. Each added person increases the scope of the Gory of God. By similar tokens, if we become Exalted then our acts of Creation (under our Father) must also increase the scale of His domain and thus in some sense His Glory. But, this is a separate issue to, shall we say, God's "rank" of personal Glory. He is already the Supreme being of our Universe. He cannot scale up or be overtaken. He does not become smarter, more capable, more wise (to our knowledge) or so on. He does not become more perfect and thus in that sense His Glory is unable to be increased. God is not in some sort of contest with other Divine beings so that as His realm increases in scale He gets to be more important than them. God would be perfect in Himself even if He did not create the worlds. But creating Worlds means more beings He can share love with, more places he is God of and so on. So in short, whilst God is Perfect and thus in that sense His Gory does not increase (He is not becoming better) as more is created and His domains increase then the scale of his Glory spreads further and further rendering him, simply, Glorious over more.

I consider all of the following logic errors: These may seem perfectly logical to you, but I don't see any inherent logic in them. And by the same token, I'm not sure your conclusion about Moses 1:39 follows either: The verse doesn't say this is His increasing glory, nor that it increases or decreases His glory. It just says it is His glory. Does it have to increase? Can this end not already be His glory, and His glory full? You're basing your entire post on your own assumption that by becoming exalted and glorified yourself, you will thereby increase God's glory. But the verse doesn't say that - you infer it. I'm not convinced you're correct. (I'm not convinced it isn't correct, either - I'm just saying that the verse doesn't make this clear either way, and I can't say I've sat and thought about the expandability of God's glory.) And what do you do with this: If God has all glory, how is He glorified by them bearing fruit? And what if they don't bear fruit? Is God less glorified? Cuz, it doesn't say, "Herein is my Father's glory reflected..." It says, "Herein is my Father glorified..." NOTE: If someone can explain to me what exactly "glory" is, I'd be grateful. Please don't cite the dictionary or Bible Dictionary at me - I've read all that. I comprehend the use. But the more I think about it, the less sure I am what "glory" is. And here's the most interesting clue I've found thus far: Suggests the Father is Christ's glory. Also suggests that whoever is to your left is your glory... 🤯 (Or that you are the glory of the person on your right hand.) Or it suggests that I'm reading it all wrong.

This really sounds like you're inviting us to leave the faith. You may want to re-read the site's terms and conditions - they're kinda strict... Am trying to be welcoming and open to discussion, but please re-read that statement of yours. You're basically calling us liars, or ignorant of our own beliefs. Do we think works matter - of course we do: scriptures are overflowing with Jesus Christ commanding His followers to do stuff. If works don't matter, why does He command them? Just because we believe works matter, that does not mean we believe works save us. One can hold both views: Saved by grace and expected to obey. They're not incompatible.

Welcome, @fiddle tenders! Where exactly are these Biblical teachings you summarize, so that I can read the verses myself? I expect this will boil down to different interpretations of scripture. FWIW, I'm in my 50s, have been an active member of the Church my entire life, and what you describe is not quite what I believe (more like a somewhat misunderstood version of it). Anywho, if we're going to discuss this, you're going to need to cite the Bible verses so we can go to the source, not to your interpretation or summation of the source.

You're right: I’ve cited Isaiah 42:8 a few times because for me it became a kind of theological anchor as I wrestled with competing views of God’s glory. “I am the Lord, that is My name; and My glory I will not give to another” pointed me to the idea that God's glory is not shared in the sense of distributed deity, but rather revealed and reflected by creation, never diminished or augmented by it. The tension I struggled with wasn’t primarily about exaltation as a metaphor or our future inheritance—Romans 8 is glorious, and I believe every word of it. In Christ, we are adopted into God’s family, called co-heirs, and promised glorification. But what I came to see is that this glorification is always derivative—it's a sharing in Christ's glory, not a becoming gods in the ontological sense. That’s the distinction I couldn't reconcile with LDS theology, especially when paired with D&C 132:20, which speaks of becoming "gods... then shall they be gods, because they have no end." In that framing, it seemed to me that God’s glory increased with our exaltation—that He in some way benefited from our progression. And that’s what seemed to clash with the God described in Isaiah 42:8 and passages like Acts 17:25, which emphasizes that God is not “served by human hands, as though he needed anything.” I hear what you're saying about different people moving in different directions spiritually over time—I've seen that too. And you're right: argument rarely changes hearts. But honest dialogue sometimes does, even if only by planting a seed or helping someone feel less alone in their questioning. That’s what threads like this mean to me. As for my username, my 8-year-old daughter actually came up with it last week when she accidentally said “fiddle tenders” instead of “chicken tenders.” I thought it was so funny, and I ended up writing it down—and when I created this account, I decided to use it.

Given there is opposition in all things (expressed as a season for everything in Ecclesiastes), including the complimentary opposition in all things which the Atonement of Jesus Christ reconciles to the Father’s glory, our never-changing God at the same time constantly increases in His creations and delight, and so enjoys an increase in these expressions of His glory. In this way He changes and remains the same at the same time, and they become the same thing. Another way of saying this in terms of relationships, “God is love (1 John 4:8) and love that does not grow is dead: 1 Thessalonians 3:12, Philippians 1:9, Ephesians 4:15, Psalm 119:32. The way and the path are used to convey progress and development (“I am the way”). The paradigm I am describing is consistent with my experience in the Restored Gospel. People without the fullness of the Gospel can share this paradigm (and they also might focus on "rewards" than the love of Christ). I remain with the Church not because of this paradigm, but because of the paradigm that the Church offers the fullness of the Gospel. I would say you do not share my second paradigm, but the Church does offer both and I accept them.

I resonate with your point about the difference between what was taught and how it was received or understood. There’s often a gap there, and recognizing that can be both freeing and challenging. For me, stepping away was less about rejecting the gospel itself and more about wrestling honestly with what I was taught, what Scripture says, and what I now understand to be true about God’s nature. I also want to acknowledge your encouragement to forgive past versions of ourselves and those who taught us. That’s a beautiful and necessary step—one I’m working through with humility and grace. It’s a journey toward peace and deeper relationship with Jesus Christ, whom I’m grateful to know more intimately now. I’m thankful for this respectful dialogue. My hope is the same—that we both continue to grow closer to Him, walking faithfully with hearts open to His truth and love.

It's nice to have visitors stop by and share their understanding of Deity. And when it comes to testifying to us weird marminz, you're doing it in a way that appears charitable and civil, taking care to not run afoul of the site rules, to which you agreed in order to post here. Hope you enjoy the discussion.

Moses 1:39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Aren't semantics fun? It's like debating whether it's okay to be proud of your kids when pride is a sin. Very useful.

I’m a bit confused by your logic. What do you think is God’s fullness of Glory. That He is a paragon of light, knowledge and power. As LDS we believe that God’s true glory lies in more than just power and knowledge. His glory is love, mercy, justice, family, and the bounties of life. All good things that bring joy to life and existence. Without spouse, children and family we believe that you cannot experience a fullness of joy. When Jesus and we follow God and become more like Him, His glory is added upon, and the universe becomes more ordered. Also, his children create wonderful things like soy sauce, rocky road ice cream, sushi, beautiful architecture, Star Wars, inspiring music etc.

I feel like there's nothing in the restored gospel that would prevent you from making this change in understanding. But I can see that, especially 2+ decades ago, some members tended to focus more on our duties in the gospel and less on Christ's gifts within the gospel. The difference between "to-do list" to "Christlike life" wasn't always clear to everyone, and thus some will have drawn conclusions like yours related to earning eternal reward. (Though you're the first person I've encountered to suggest that our doctrine claims God needs us for something, let alone His own completeness.) For my entire life, we have been moving from a task-oriented instruction style toward a rely-on-Christ instruction style. This is a good thing. The Church is maturing and we are teaching differently (just as one would teach a child differently from an adult). I don't know how long it's been since you were in the Church, but if it's been decades, you might find it a different place - even though it's the same place1. 1Some accuse us of having changed doctrine. They do not understand the difference between teaching style, policy, and doctrine. Our doctrine has not changed one whit. If anyone reading this thread doesn't understand the relationship between grace and works (which seems to be an underlying theme of this thread), I would recommend Brother Brad Wilcox's BYU Devotional, "His Grace Is Sufficient" - it's wonderful. If you can't bring yourself to watch a 30-minute talk, ask yourself this question: “Have you been changed by grace?”

Never ask a question you don’t want the answer to. 😜 (just playing)