Uncomfortable Doctrine


fiona84
 Share

Recommended Posts

To make it worse I always think of Pres. Hinkley saying "I don't know that we teach that" when asked about the godhood doctrine on Larry King. It seems like even he was uncomfortable with that!

I think President Hinckley was trying to deemphasize this speculative point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 470
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Fiona, you have a defeatist attitude.

Your sins were already paid for by the atonement. When you repent from your sins and ask forgiveness they are no more. The whole point of Christ's atonement was to blot your sins so that you could approach Heavenly Father clean and blameless. When you say something like that, you are saying that Christ's atonement isn't enough for you.

If saying Father isn't reverent enough, why did Jesus teach us to say, "Our Father...." as the beginning of the Lord's prayer?

Christ's atonement IS enough for me. It is everything for me! That's why I don't want to be a god. I worship Heavenly Father and His Son for what they did for me. No one is ever going to worship ME.

Saying 'Our Father' when addressing him in prayer is different than saying 'Be nice to your spouse as this is what Father told us to do. Father wants us to be gods and godesses and in order to be like Father we need to be good,etc,etc.'

His whole talk was basically chatting about how good we should be for Father so we can be like him.

I apologize for my defeatest attitude. :confused: I am earnestly trying to get to the bottom of this issue. I'm doing that because I sincerely don't want it to bother me so much. I was hoping to find a way to come to terms with this in the way that God wants me to. I want to believe it, I wish I could. I'm finding this really upsetting. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not have much difficulty believing we shall be come god-like. After all, we will be glorified, and we will rule and reign with Christ. However, can I expect to some day have subjects that worship me? To me, such a belief would cross the line. Even if I remain a subject to my Heavenly Father, and continue to worship him throughout eternity, if I also believe I shall receive worship...that seems blasphemous to me. At least one LDS member has publically posted that such is unthinkable, and seems blasphemous too. Perhaps this is an area of speculation, but many non-LDS believe this is standard LDS teaching--that members expect to become Gods.

I think the problem begins with, and most people ignore, the fact of what perspective people have of God in the first place. Obviously, when I speak of God and someone of another faith speaks of God, it is very likely we are speaking about two entirely different things. That is why people of other faiths can be offended by this doctrine (or should I say perspective, as I'm not sure it qualifies as doctrine).

My perspective, then, begins with God not as some omnipotent being who is unreachable and exists for the purpose of worship, but as our "Father" in heaven. And just like I want my kids to have none of my bad qualities and more than all of my good, Heavenly Father wants that for his children as well. To become like Him someday means to have all his good qualities so that I can assist him in his eternal mission, which is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life and happiness of humankind. No one can ever replace God nor supplant his position. If I am a captain in the army with all the same qualities of the General, does that mean I replace the General? no he is still the General. Whether or not someone worships me is of little importance, I doubt very seriously that even if over a thousand thousand years if I developed God's qualities I would ever be worthy of being worshipped. We are not sure that if we help to build and populate other planets, are we the gods of those planets or is Our Heavenly Father still the God of all planets, will there be a new Christ for those planets, or will Jesus be the Christ worshipped by all. None of this matters, what matters is my eternal relationship with my Heavenly Father, who is to me "Father" first, and "God" second.

Edited by richlittell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christ's atonement IS enough for me. It is everything for me! That's why I don't want to be a god. I worship Heavenly Father and His Son for what they did for me. No one is ever going to worship ME.

agree.

I apologize for my defeatest attitude. :confused: I am earnestly trying to get to the bottom of this issue. I'm doing that because I sincerely don't want it to bother me so much. I was hoping to find a way to come to terms with this in the way that God wants me to. I want to believe it, I wish I could. I'm finding this really upsetting. :cry:

Don't let a talk by others get you down. I have on an occasion or two also felt uncomfortable with someone's approach to a gospel topic. Maybe this guy was just trying to make Heavenly Father seem more approachable or something. I do believe we should address him as Christ addressed him, that is either as Father in Heaven, or Heavenly Father, or God, or God of us all, an so on, something respectful.

As for the doctrine of becoming a God. This is not relevant to yours and my salvation for now. No one ever said we would be worshipped. So just relax.

Think of it this way, eternity is for a very very very long time--we cannot comprehend it. If slowly but surely over millions or billions of years I keep improving myself through Heavenly Father's guidance, I may just wake up one day to see that I am like him in every way except for his Supreme Stature.

Remember Christ's prayer [i'll paraphrase] with his apostles when he prayed to Heavenly Father that they may become one in Him as He is One in the Father and so on. Or here is a D&C that I did locate:

#

D&C 35: 2

" I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even one in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one."

This oneness we are aiming to achieve is nothing more than the ability to be righteous in all situations, to act and respond to things as would Heavenly Father and Christ, and we have billions of years to work on all this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christ's atonement IS enough for me. It is everything for me! That's why I don't want to be a god. I worship Heavenly Father and His Son for what they did for me. No one is ever going to worship ME.

Saying 'Our Father' when addressing him in prayer is different than saying 'Be nice to your spouse as this is what Father told us to do. Father wants us to be gods and godesses and in order to be like Father we need to be good,etc,etc.'

His whole talk was basically chatting about how good we should be for Father so we can be like him.

I apologize for my defeatest attitude. :confused: I am earnestly trying to get to the bottom of this issue. I'm doing that because I sincerely don't want it to bother me so much. I was hoping to find a way to come to terms with this in the way that God wants me to. I want to believe it, I wish I could. I'm finding this really upsetting. :cry:

fiona84,

Take heart. Study the scriptures; they represent the official doctrine of this Church, and they are in harmony with your desire to worship God and only God. We are the children of God, and as such have the potential to be like him, but there is nothing in the scriptures that even suggests that we will take over. The suggestion is that we will continue his work, by bearing the souls of men, the same as has been done eternally before this time.

I personally don't take any issue with calling Heavenly Father "Father". That designation drives home the point that he literally is our Father. To Mary, Jesus taught:

Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (John 20:17)

The truth that "God was once a Man" is nothing to worry about either, and it can also be harmonized with revealed scripture. Not only was he a man, he is still a Man. One of his name/titles is "Man of Holiness". God revealed to Enoch this truth:

Behold, I am God; Man of Holiness is my name; Man of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name, also. (Moses 7:35)

That scripture, as well as all the scriptures, makes it clear that God has ever been God. So, even if He did enter mortality to gain a body at some point, he was God before, during, and after, Just like Jesus Christ was:

And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. (Mosiah 15:1)

And just for trivia, one of the name/titles of Jesus Christ is "Son of Man".

Regards,

Vanhin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was posted on previous threads and written many times in explaining it. The problem as Joseph Smith reported that other doctrine and principles could not be given to the church during his time due to the Saints immaturity. It is no different today. If anything is out of content, it is the Saint who are quick to judge and slow to research and finding the HG confirmation in prayer. I will remind those individuals here; President Young had two seer stones during his tenure as prophet, seer, and revelator. Even he had problems with the immature Saints who were not ready to receive additional revelations.

Note the emphasis upon man being created from the dust of the earth. The early brethren (especially Brigham Young) taught that Adam was brought here from another planet. This appears to be in conflict with the scriptural statement that Adam was "formed from the dust of the ground," but there may be some subtle way to reconcile the two ideas. Was Adam brought here in some embryonic form, using the substance of this earth to grow to maturity? Journal of Discourses, 7:285-86; 11:122

Again, do you still feel uncomfortable? As to canonization, I offer up those questions for a reason since we simple don't canonized everything that the HG confirms to the President of the church. Is it really neccessary? No....we simple add it to our daily lives as part of our character as the gosepl.

Another tidbit of information...historical fact that Eve was the oldest living human on this earth. She died after Adam and not before.

Edited by Hemidakota
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that we are to worship God. I believe that the only person ever on earth that has been fit to worship is Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God.

I want to be 'Christ-like' and strive for perfection even though I know as a sinner, I will never be perfect like Christ.

So...I feel in heaven that even though we are created in God's image and will be able to inheret the kingdom of God, etc, he is still our one and only God, and we are not worthy to be deemed gods and godesses, even with a little 'g'.

I find the idea that my husband or I will one day be worshipped to be a sick idea.

I vaguely remember hearing that saying about...as man now is, God once was, etc....

so that means God was once a man? Not our God? I thought He has always existed as God?

This whole thing still makes me squirm.

I have a testimony of the church, and even when I 'tried' to go to other churches I could not deny this church...and I mean, all you have to do is look at our church and know it is from God. :)

Which is why this bothers me so much.

Thanks everyone. I'm going to keep praying about it and also focus on things I DO know to be true.

This high council speaker....spoke about God as if he were just a next door neighbor or something. There was no reverence to his words about 'Father', just ramblings about how we should be good so we can be gods and godesses like 'Father'. It was like he put us on equal footing or someting. He couldn't even call him 'Heavenly Father' or GOD.

I'm going to try to forget about this talk. Thanks for your insight, everyone!

PS. What is that madness about God landing on earth and his wife giving birth to Adam? Again, I'm ignoring it.....

Like Prison Chaplin, I am not concerned about taking honors upon myself. I am concerned with the good that we can do for others. Having experienced parenthood I realize that young children will worship their parents through emulation, especially if their parents are goodly as mine were. Acting like or trying to be like, is in my mind the highest form of worship.

Perhaps there are misunderstandings of what constitutes worship. For example, we may think of prayer as a form of worship. However, prayer is the only form of communicating with G-d that we can initiate – Would we not want our children to initiate communications with us as parents, asking us for help, directions in their lives, for things they need and thanking us for what we have done for them?

As for the concept of “As man is G-d once was and as G-d is man may become.” Jesus is the only example of G-d that man has. It is through Christ (the mediator) that we learn anything and all things about G-d. So let us review the above statement:

As man is G-d once was. => As man is Jesus Christ once lived. As we suffer and die so did Christ suffer and die.

As G-d is man may become. => As Jesus Christ was raised from the dead and glorified to ascend to heaven to sit on the right hand of G-d the Father so can man be resurrected from the dead and glorified to ascend to heaven to sit at the right hand of G-d.

Let me assure you that we should seek after every good thing and that everything about G-d is good. There is not one thing about G-d that is evil and should not be sought. And yet there are some that would tempt us to not seek after all that is good. G-d the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ are indeed the example of all that is good and we should seek in every way to be like them. This is the doctrine as I understand it and I do not know why anyone would pervert such a beautiful concept of shun such a doctrine.

For me it is very simple – if something is a true nature and attribute of G-d it is good and we should seek to obtain that goodness – no exceptions – none. This is not uncomfortable to me – it is good news beyond anything that I have ever known and something I am the most comfortable with beyond anything that I have ever heard. I also believe that G-d will not force even his greatest and most valuable goodness on anyone – we will all live in eternity with whatever goodness we are comfortable.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is clear to me from what I have learned about the godhood idea is that I would inherit the fullest of God's blessings, continue to progress in the eternities and become part of the creative process. There is nothing in that idea that means that I would be worshipped. I think that progressing and perhaps even taking on some appointed stewardships or responsibilities in that realm make sense. But there is nothing that says that we will all be worshipped.

You know we throw around these ideas and make some really gross assumptions. In my opinion, Brigham Young was thinking out loud. Not all of our prophets speak prophetically every time they open their mouths. Even today our leaders produce books and sell them at popular book stores. But they are not part of the canon and do not have the church's endorsement. We must be very careful about this area and what we post here as official church doctrine.

Hemi....I am afraid what you have said falls in this catagory.

Edited by Misshalfway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is clear to me from what I have learned about the godhood idea is that I would inherit the fullest of God's blessings, continue to progress in the eternities and become part of the creative process. There is nothing in that idea that means that I would be worshipped. I think that progressing and perhaps even taking on some appointed stewardships or responsibilities in that realm make sense. But there is nothing that says that we will all be worshipped.

You know we throw around these ideas and make some really gross assumptions. In my opinion, Brigham Young was thinking out loud. Not all of our prophets speak prophetically every time they open their mouths. Even today our leaders produce books and sell them at popular book stores. But they are not part of the canon and do not have the church's endorsement. We must be very careful about this area and what we post here as official church doctrine.

Hemi....I am afraid what you have said falls in this catagory.

Just so I am clear - is to be worshiped a evil attribute of G-d and therefore we should not seek such a thing? Should we not seek after all that is good and righteous? For me - everything about G-d is good and should be sought - no exceptions - regardless of any spin by any man or anyone for that matter.

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just so I am clear - is to be worshiped a evil attribute of G-d and therefore we should not see such a thing? Should we not seek after all that is good and righteous?

The Traveler

I am not saying it is evil. I am saying that such an idea is an assumption. Perhaps even a logical assumption if you don't at look traditional definitions and terminology. But I am not convinced nor does this church teach that becoming a god (with a little g) in the eternities MEANS that we will be worshipped.

And then I could ask you if seeking to be worshipped is a righteous pursuit. Dude....being worshipped should be the last thing on our list of righteous pursuits!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not saying it is evil. I am saying that such an idea is an assumption. Perhaps even a logical assumption if you don't at look traditional definitions and terminology. But I am not convinced nor does this church teach that becoming a god (with a little g) in the eternities MEANS that we will be worshipped.

And then I could ask you if seeking to be worshipped is a righteous pursuit. Dude....being worshipped should be the last thing on our list of righteous pursuits!

Seeking something that G-d is or does or something he seeks is good. If G-d does something I define that as good. Many may seek to be worshiped but not for the same reason or purpose that G-d does. I do not know all things but I trust and believe in G-d. I do not believe he is a do as I say - not as I do - kind of G-d. I trust him, his methods and all he asks, all that he allows and all that he does. If it is really a part of him - I am comfortable with being a part of him and I seek it - no exceptions - none.

You can seek what you will but for me - I seek the goodness of G-d - whatever that is.

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeking something that G-d is or does or something he seeks is good. If G-d does something I define that as good. Many may seek to be worshiped but not for the same reason or purpose that G-d does. I do not know all things but I trust and believe in G-d. I do not believe he is a do as I say - not as I do - kind of G-d. I trust him, his methods and all he asks, all that he allows and all that he does. If it is really a part of him - I am comfortable with being a part of him and I seek it - no exceptions - none.

You can seek what you will but for me - I seek the goodness of G-d - whatever that is.

The Traveler

Seeking the goodness of God.........you are going to have to show me where in official church doctrine the pursuit of being worshipped is listed.

Becoming like God......and becoming God himself are two different ideas. The scriptures use the term "gods" with a little g. It seems to me there is a great disparity in our human ability to comprehend what this means. It hasn't been revealed completely and isn't taught as doctrine. It lies in the realms of intelligent speculation. You yourself, traveler, make some assumptions that seem to feel right to you. But they are not church doctrine and shouldn't be presented as such. That is my only point.

Edited by Misshalfway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see where the misconception about the 'little g' comes from. Everything i've read and studied points to us being full blown Gods with all the baggage attached.

Gordon C. Thomasson, “Becoming Saviors on Mount Zion: The Place of Suffering in the Gospel of Unselfishness,” New Era, Apr 1973, 11

On February 16, 1849, Brigham Young stated to the Twelve, “As God was, so are we now; as he is now, so shall we be.” (Manuscript History.) One of the greatest blessings of the restored gospel is the knowledge that we can become perfect, even as our Father in heaven is perfect. We know that through living certain principles we can approach perfection

LDS.org - New Era Article - Becoming Saviors on Mount Zion: The Place of Suffering in the Gospel of Unselfishness

… What is [man]? He had his being in the eternal worlds; he existed before he came here. He is not only the son of man, but he is the son of God also. He is a God in embryo, and possesses within him a spark of that eternal flame which was struck from the blaze of God’s eternal fire in the eternal world, and is placed here upon the earth that he may possess true intelligence, true light, true knowledge,—that he may know himself—that he may know God—that he may know something about what he was before he came here—that he may know something about what he is destined to enjoy in the eternal worlds.

LDS.org - New Era Article - Becoming Saviors on Mount Zion: The Place of Suffering in the Gospel of Unselfishness

He did not originate from a chaotic mass of matter, moving or inert, but came forth possessing, in an embryonic state, all the faculties and powers of a God. And when he shall be perfected, and have progressed to maturity, he will be like his Father—a God, being indeed His offspring. As the horse, the ox, the sheep, and every living creature, including man, propagates its own species and perpetuates its own kind, so does God perpetuate his.

LDS.org - New Era Article - Becoming Saviors on Mount Zion: The Place of Suffering in the Gospel of Unselfishness

Edited by bmy-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of these ideas may or may not be true. I don't really care either way. The issue I take is that a lot of these ideas are being extracted from statements, discourses, journals, etc by people who haven't done the work to earn them. A prime example: Mormon Doctrine -- I can't tell you how many times I've heard people quote that book as if it were official Mormon doctrine. But mind you, that book has been edited almost as much as the history of the papacy (my apologies ceeboo). At the same time, they have no idea where the basis of those conclusions is. If you ask them to support the conclusion with scripture, they look at you blankly and say, "well, someone smarter than me said it." Well, Plato was smarter than you too, and his Republic experiment failed miserably.

My suggestion is to stick to the Standard Works, and the addresses at General Conference. You'll find everything you need to know in there, and if you study very carefully and with faith, you'll learn everything you want to know about these 'deep and mysterious doctrines' right from the source.

As for whether we might be worshipped some day, this is all I have to say: the people we worship are those that have the power over our salvation. The only way we would ever be worshipped is if we had power over others' salvation. So, if indeed we can become Gods and create worlds in this same model, then we would be worshipped in our role regarding those people's salvation.

The advancement into godhood, however, is not a principle of the Gospel. The endpoint of the Gospel in our doctrine is overcoming spiritual death and returning to live with God the Father, and Jesus Christ. Any perks that may or may not be associated with such exaltation are corollary at best, and very often speculative. And they certainly have no place in talks coming from our pulpits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see where the misconception about the 'little g' comes from. Everything i've read and studied points to us being full blown Gods with all the baggage attached.

Let me be clear. I am not disagreeing with the quotes you listed below. But none of them define specifically what it means to be a god in the hereafter. They just tell us of our divine heritage and potential. I am just not convinced that that means precisely the we will be in position to be worshipped. I may have God as my spiritual father and if obedient may inherit great riches and privilages. But will I be worshipped? That is not defined.

It is a great question. A question that opens many wonderful possibilities. And those who have tried to answer this question do so under the umbrella of speculation NOT official doctrine. That is my point.

Saying that these ideas mean "full blown Gods with all of the baggage" is an assumption.....as intelligent and as logical as it may seem.

And that ever famous statement "As man is God once was....as God is man may become" is something we talk about NOT something we teach. YOu get that? We don't know! We just think.

Edited by Misshalfway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is clear to me from what I have learned about the godhood idea is that I would inherit the fullest of God's blessings, continue to progress in the eternities and become part of the creative process. There is nothing in that idea that means that I would be worshipped. I think that progressing and perhaps even taking on some appointed stewardships or responsibilities in that realm make sense. But there is nothing that says that we will all be worshipped.

You know we throw around these ideas and make some really gross assumptions. In my opinion, Brigham Young was thinking out loud. Not all of our prophets speak prophetically every time they open their mouths. Even today our leaders produce books and sell them at popular book stores. But they are not part of the canon and do not have the church's endorsement. We must be very careful about this area and what we post here as official church doctrine.

Hemi....I am afraid what you have said falls in this catagory.

How can you say President Young was thinking out loud? Did the Lord tell you? Hmm....this is what I am referring too in my previous posting; a prevalent problem in the church from Joseph Smith day. Even I look at this comment and had to come to grips in asking the FATHER whether it is true or not. This pattern of asking should always be the course for all the Saints. But that is not case I keep seeing. Even most arrogant Astro Physicist can’t see behind there own noses, thinking there own academic learning will provide the appropriate answer to every universe questions.

Now, I do see this as a problem in the church. If I cannot accept it, then no one else should. If I don’t have understanding, then no else should. See my point? We need to careful of what was spoken; whether you think it was out of jest or any other label you may add.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The advancement into godhood, however, is not a principle of the Gospel. The endpoint of the Gospel in our doctrine is overcoming spiritual death and returning to live with God the Father, and Jesus Christ. Any perks that may or may not be associated with such exaltation are corollary at best, and very often speculative. And they certainly have no place in talks coming from our pulpits.

D&C 132:19-20

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths— ... and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that ever famous statement "As man is God once was....as God is man may become" is something we talk about NOT something we teach. YOu get that? We don't know! We just think.

I agree with the rest -- the topic of worship is speculation. I've got my personal ideas about it through logic.. and it so happened to be complimented by prayer. It's enough for me I suppose. :)

OTOH.. That quote comes from doctrine and could be considered doctrine in itself. If it's not taught it's to avoid making members and investigators feel uncomfortable.

I think it's something we 'know' but we don't teach often for fear of ridicule.

Edited by bmy-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Misshalfway on this one. I see her saying that it is simply speculation and perhaps a logical conclusion that some people have come to based on their interpretation of exaltation, but it is not taught in the scriptures that we will be worshiped or that we should seek to be worshiped, therefore we should not teach it. Some even think that we will become the father of our own universe and have christs of our own, which is not supported by scripture. The scriptures that are binding upon us teach that we will continue the work of the Father and glorify Him, and that we will bear the souls of men.

I can also understand the point that Traveler is making, because I use the same argument to explain one of the ways that we worship both the Father and the Son; in emulating them, that is... However, I think it is stretching that definition to say that it applies to all cases of emulation, or that we, as children of God, should seek to be worshiped. In fact, I would argue that there is evidence in the scriptures that suggests otherwise.

I think one of the strongest cases against such a desire would be to look at what Lucifer sought after. He sought to exalt his "throne above the stars of God", and "sit also upon the mount of the congregation" (2 Ne. 14:13, Isa. 14:13). After he had been cast out of heaven for rebellion, he appeared to Moses and said, "Moses thou son of Man, worship me.", to which Moses ultimately replied, "Depart from me, Satan, for this one God only will I worship, which is the God of glory." (Moses 1:12-20).

I guess I'm with PrisonChaplain too. When we enter our exaltation, if God says he wants me to be worshiped, then I will do his will. Or if binding revelation is received before that time that suggests that we should seek it, then I will. But as it stands, the scriptures are quite clear on this matter.

It is interesting that the references to us becoming gods in the hereafter are spelled with a lower case "g". It is at least slightly significant to me.

I believe Elohim is the Supreme Ruler and his Son Jehovah is the Lord and Savior of all that exists, and that their work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of mankind. I believe that worlds without number have passed and men and women have been entering their exaltation for eternities past under their direction and because of the merits of Jesus Christ. I believe that just like the Saints do in mortality, the righteous will continue to assist in this work forever. I think scriptures are in harmony with this belief of mine, and I am happy to just keep it at that until (or if) we receive further light and knowledge on the matter.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the rest -- the topic of worship is speculation. I've got my personal ideas about it through logic.. and it so happened to be complimented by prayer. It's enough for me I suppose. :)

OTOH.. That quote comes from doctrine and could be considered doctrine in itself. If it's not taught it's to avoid making members and investigators feel uncomfortable.

I think it's something we 'know' but we don't teach often for fear of ridicule.

I think it is because we don't know enough to teach it correctly and for it to be understood correctly. I think it is because of what MOE said. It isn't a saving doctrine. It doesn't pertain to our earthy work other than to steer the direction of our goals.

Why not ask the question and think the thoughts. Why not pray and ask on our own! Why not read the words of the brethren. But when someone such as the OP comes here with a concern.....why do we feel it is ok to thru up the deepest of speculatory exploration as doctrine?

Sometimes I think with all of our learning we forget what wisdom and perspective is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Misshalfway on this one. I see her saying that it is simply speculation and perhaps a logical conclusion that some people have come to based on their interpretation of exaltation, but it is not taught in the scriptures that we will be worshiped or that we should seek to be worshiped, therefore we should not teach it. Some even think that we will become the father of our own universe and have christs of our own, which is not supported by scripture. The scriptures that are binding upon us teach that we will continue the work of the Father and glorify Him, and that we will bear the souls of men.

I can also understand the point that Traveler is making, because I use the same argument to explain one of the ways that we worship both the Father and the Son; in emulating them, that is... However, I think it is stretching that definition to say that it applies to all cases of emulation, or that we, as children of God, should seek to be worshiped. In fact, I would argue that there is evidence in the scriptures that suggests otherwise.

I think one of the strongest cases against such a desire would be to look at what Lucifer sought after. He sought to exalt his "throne above the stars of God", and "sit also upon the mount of the congregation" (2 Ne. 14:13, Isa. 14:13). After he had been cast out of heaven for rebellion, he appeared to Moses and said, "Moses thou son of Man, worship me.", to which Moses ultimately replied, "Depart from me, Satan, for this one God only will I worship, which is the God of glory." (Moses 1:12-20).

I guess I'm with PrisonChaplain too. When we enter our exaltation, if God says he wants me to be worshiped, then I will do his will. Or if binding revelation is received before that time that suggests that we should seek it, then I will. But as it stands, the scriptures are quite clear on this matter.

It is interesting that the references to us becoming gods in the hereafter are spelled with a lower case "g". It is at least slightly significant to me.

I believe Elohim is the Supreme Ruler and his Son Jehovah is the Lord and Savior of all that exists, and that their work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of mankind. I believe that worlds without number have passed and men and women have been entering their exaltation for eternities past under their direction and because of the merits of Jesus Christ. I believe that just like the Saints do in mortality, the righteous will continue to assist in this work forever. I think scriptures are in harmony with this belief of mine, and I am happy to just keep it at that until (or if) we receive further light and knowledge on the matter.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

I am reminded of a scripture in Moses when he, after experiencing great visions exclaims that man is nothing ..... something that he had never before supposed. I am also reminded of how many times in scriptures man is put in his place.....reminded of his puny arm.....told to remember who does have all the power. It is only thru the Savior that we can do anything here.......or anything there!

And Vanhin...I thanked you for validating all positions and bringing the conversation into balance.

Edited by Misshalfway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is because we don't know enough to teach it correctly and for it to be understood correctly. I think it is because of what MOE said. It isn't a saving doctrine. It doesn't pertain to our earthy work other than to steer the direction of our goals.

Why not ask the question and think the thoughts. Why not pray and ask on our own! Why not read the words of the brethren. But when someone such as the OP comes here with a concern.....why do we feel it is ok to thru up the deepest of speculatory exploration as doctrine?

Sometimes I think with all of our learning we forget what wisdom and perspective is.

I think with her concerns.. the only way to reconcile them would be to study the subject thoroughly. After she's exhausted her temporal supply of knowledge.. she can turn to her Heavenly Father and ask once more.

That's the course of action I hope she takes at least.

Best of luck to you OP.

EDIT: "Sometimes I think with all of our learning we forget what wisdom and perspective is.

Reply With Quote" (really good point, I liked it alot)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christ's atonement IS enough for me. It is everything for me! That's why I don't want to be a god. I worship Heavenly Father and His Son for what they did for me. No one is ever going to worship ME.

Saying 'Our Father' when addressing him in prayer is different than saying 'Be nice to your spouse as this is what Father told us to do. Father wants us to be gods and godesses and in order to be like Father we need to be good,etc,etc.'

His whole talk was basically chatting about how good we should be for Father so we can be like him.

I apologize for my defeatest attitude. :confused: I am earnestly trying to get to the bottom of this issue. I'm doing that because I sincerely don't want it to bother me so much. I was hoping to find a way to come to terms with this in the way that God wants me to. I want to believe it, I wish I could. I'm finding this really upsetting. :cry:

Your "comfort level" with this doctrine will increase as you become closer and closer to your Savior.

I am not sure of all the reasons why this doctrine upsets you so much, but it is a doctrine that Christ taught during his mortal ministry. Before and After His mortal ministry. It IS the Gospel. It is our destiny! We must claim it as ours.

My advice would be -- do not go to man for the understanding and level of comfort that only GOD can give you. Pray unto the Father, in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and explain your reasons to Him of why you do not accept this doctrine that we can be gods and godesses. The Father will send you peace and comfort and understanding. Perhaps not overnight, or even over a matter of weeks or months....but the understanding WILL COME if you seek it. That is His promise! That He gives liberally to those that ask and will not upbraid (will not condemn you for asking).

We can give you words. But only Father can reveal it to your mind and heart.

Please feel free to contact me in a PM if you want to discuss this further.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My perspective, then, begins with God not as some omnipotent being who is unreachable and exists for the purpose of worship, but as our "Father" in heaven. And just like I want my kids to have none of my bad qualities and more than all of my good, Heavenly Father wants that for his children as well. To become like Him someday means to have all his good qualities so that I can assist him in his eternal mission, which is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life and happiness of humankind. No one can ever replace God nor supplant his position. ... We are not sure that if we help to build and populate other planets, are we the gods of those planets or is Our Heavenly Father still the God of all planets, will there be a new Christ for those planets, or will Jesus be the Christ worshipped by all. None of this matters, what matters is my eternal relationship with my Heavenly Father, who is to me "Father" first, and "God" second.

Great point! But, to clarify, my understanding of the LDS teaching concerning our Heavenly Father is that he is literally our Father, in the same sense humans parent their children. In other words, we are meant to become all that He is. Ultimately, that would seem to mean that we will become Gods, and that our Heavenly Father will take great joy in the worship we receive as we create our worlds, and eventually become "Heavenly Father" of the Gods we birth.

In contrast, most Protestants and Catholics understand God, not as unreachable, but as our "Creator Father." Rather than being a biological parent, birthing more Gods, we see him as the perfect Maker, who treasures us as his masterpieces. We are not what He is, but we are finest work, and He delights in us, and we in Him.

I suppose this could all dovetail into a discussion of creation ex nihilo vs. the LDS teaching of God creating our opportunity, as eternal intelligences, to experience corporeal existence, and engage our free agency as we strive for the eternal heavenly kingdom most appropriate for us. Enough to say, these teachings do overlap, don't they? :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share