We can become gods?

[Islander]

I suggested this before. We should have FAQ's on the site. The questions remain the same time and again. It will save time and provide for a quick crash course for the truly interested and avoid A-train being worn out and "derail" trying to explain for the n-th time.

Cheers

[MrNirom]

I read on a web site once:

Jesus preached the kingdom of God and invited all believers to come to it. Exactly what would be the

nature of the inhabitants of the kingdom of God?

The vegetable kingdom is composed of vegetables.

The animal kingdom is composed of animals and the human kingdom is composed of humans.

Therefore what kind of residents abide in the Kingdom of God? Yes. They can only be Gods. When

Jesus invited us to the kingdom of God he called us to leave the illusionary human kingdom and

assume our true nature as Gods in the God kingdom. In other words, we are to be as he is. A glorious

thought is it not? JJ

[Islander]

I have a teen son and a brand new baby. I marvel at the fragility of her soft and mall body, the uncertainty and dependence of this tiny girl on her parents for EVERYTHING and her tender smile, as much as I stand blown away by my son's 7 second flat on the 60 yard dash.

The fact that we can not visualize the beginning and the end in one all encompassing glance does not limit our potential. What we are today is, in an order of magnitude, a fraction of what we can become in the celestial kingdom nurtured by and sitting side by side as heirs with the Savior of mankind; sharing in His glory, knowledge and divinity offered to us for an eternity by The Father.

You will be surprised what 10,000 years dwelling in the presence of God will do your body:

"And I fell at his [the angel's] feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." Rev. 19:10

[Interested]

I just interperate the passage of Jesus calling people gods differently.

To ancient peoples, demons could be considered gods.

[FinGirl87]

This is the reason why I didn't want to explain this, because people will get upset. I didn't mean anything bad with it. I think mormons have the right to believe how they wish. But for me this IS a big deal. I don't believe there can be other gods but God, and I don't want to learn to believe it. Just because many people tell me that it could be possible that humans could become gods, that doesn't make it the truth.

But the thing that I found most upsetting, was the fact that my missionaries denied this whole belief in multiple gods before I was baptised, even though I specifically asked them, and only told me after I had paid some of my yearly 10%.

I'm not anti-mormon. I'm still in contact with some church members, I don't courage people to leave the church.

[guitarwizard]

This is the reason why I didn't want to explain this, because people will get upset. I didn't mean anything bad with it. I think mormons have the right to believe how they wish. But for me this IS a big deal. I don't believe there can be other gods but God, and I don't want to learn to believe it. Just because many people tell me that it could be possible that humans could become gods, that doesn't make it the truth.

But the thing that I found most upsetting, was the fact that my missionaries denied this whole belief in multiple gods before I was baptised, even though I specifically asked them, and only told me after I had paid some of my yearly 10%.

I'm not anti-mormon. I'm still in contact with some church members, I don't courage people to leave the church.

It's ok Tytto. I don't think anyone has gotten upset because they are scared of the doctrine or anything. It is just something that we, as believing members, keep hearing over and over and over again.

It is truth, and I am sorry that you don't "want to learn to believe it," but that doesn't make it not true. I don't want to learn to believe that i need to go to my Organic Chemistry class, but i do. But, no one can make you believe something that you are not ready to hear.

And it really is a shame the missionaries didn't clearly answer you, but it is a hard doctrine. The prophet Joseph even said when it was discussed in the King Follett Sermon that it would be a hard doctrine. Just drum up and remember that testimony of Joseph Smith that you must have had to be baptized. No one is taking glory away from God. He is still the Highest, Most Supreme Being and us advancing towards "godhood" does nothing but give Him more glory. No one will surpass our Heavenly Father.

But again, you can't force belief.

[Islander]

This is the reason why I didn't want to explain this, because people will get upset. I didn't mean anything bad with it. I think mormons have the right to believe how they wish. But for me this IS a big deal. I don't believe there can be other gods but God, and I don't want to learn to believe it. Just because many people tell me that it could be possible that humans could become gods, that doesn't make it the truth.

But the thing that I found most upsetting, was the fact that my missionaries denied this whole belief in multiple gods before I was baptised, even though I specifically asked them, and only told me after I had paid some of my yearly 10%.

I'm not anti-mormon. I'm still in contact with some church members, I don't courage people to leave the church.

Tytto:

You are quite young and I suspect that, regardless, there are years of prayerful study prior to understanding the basic doctrines of the Gospel. By the way, nobody is angry at you for not understanding this doctrinal principle.

In your lexicon, what does the word "god" means to you? What does it implies? You should start there since, it appears to me that thus far semantics are getting in the way of you comprehending this issue.

Edited November 28, 2008 by Islander

[a-train]

I don't believe there can be other gods but God, and I don't want to learn to believe it. Just because many people tell me that it could be possible that humans could become gods, that doesn't make it the truth.

And just because many people deny that God has the power to exalt His children, doesn't mean He can't. The scriptures teach plainly that the righteous who are cleansed by the Blood of Christ will be made as pure as He is, will inherit the earth and a kingdom, will sit with Christ in His throne, will wear crowns of glory, will be raised to immortality, and will eternally work in the service of God.

Further, it says in no uncertain terms that man is the offspring of God. And it clearly also teaches that God came to earth, was born of a woman, grew from childhood to manhood and endured the human condition in every way and died at Calvary and rose physically from the tomb on the third day to rise bodily to the Presence of the Father. This same process, of birth, life, death, resurrection, and exaltation is the process all men who are to be exalted in the Presence of God shall go through.

Now, we can call that whatever we want I guess. We can say that man won't become a god (whatever that means). But if we are in denial of any of the truths I've mentioned above, we are in denial of the Holy Bible.

-a-train

[rameumptom]

I think it is a wonderful thing to be able to become gods. It means that the term "Heavenly Father" really means something. As a Father, he wants us to grow up to be like Him. And as with the Father in the story of the Prodigal Son, we are offered all that He (God) has as an inheritance, if we are faithful.

There is a big difference between having one God to worship, and multiple gods being worshipped. The Bible shows time and again that we can become as God.

The problem with Adam and Eve partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, is that the were forbidden to partake of it. At that time. Disobedience separates us from God. However, opposition in all things teaches us knowledge, which opens the door for us to be able to be Christ-like. Paul taught in Hebrews that even Jesus learned to succor us because of his sufferings. Paul taught that Christ did not think it robbery to be equal with God, and as children of God are "heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ." Even Jesus quoted the OT in stating, "ye are gods."

The problem with Adam and Eve's fall, is they attempted to gain knowledge through Satan's temptation and counsel. Godhood cannot come that way, for Satan seeks to overthrow the throne of God and sit in God's place. Knowledge, in this instance, is used for evil purposes. Man, for following Satan, is cast out of God's presence, and cannot return by himself.

But Christ has come to bridge the gap. It is Jesus, and Jesus only, that shows us the way to the Tree of Life, where if we partake through Christ, we can live with God and be like Him eternally. Divinization of mankind is still believed, though not actively taught, in many Christian churches today, including the Eastern Orthodox.

But the concept of God being of a separate substance from man, which Greek belief led to the Trinity creed, also slowly killed the concept that man may become divine. Yet, we can read it in the writings of many of the earliest Christian Fathers, and in the writings of the Bible, through Paul, John, Peter and Jesus himself.

[Hemidakota]

And just because many people deny that God has the power to exalt His children, doesn't mean He can't. The scriptures teach plainly that the righteous who are cleansed by the Blood of Christ will be made as pure as He is, will inherit the earth and a kingdom, will sit with Christ in His throne, will wear crowns of glory, will be raised to immortality, and will eternally work in the service of God.

Further, it says in no uncertain terms that man is the offspring of God. And it clearly also teaches that God came to earth, was born of a woman, grew from childhood to manhood and endured the human condition in every way and died at Calvary and rose physically from the tomb on the third day to rise bodily to the Presence of the Father. This same process, of birth, life, death, resurrection, and exaltation is the process all men who are to be exalted in the Presence of God shall go through.

Now, we can call that whatever we want I guess. We can say that man won't become a god (whatever that means). But if we are in denial of any of the truths I've mentioned above, we are in denial of the Holy Bible.

-a-train

We allow people to express themselves and their personal opinions or assumptions. People will be satisfied for what will be given in the end. We can only hope, through continuous learning, they will come to change that opinion and learned it was indeed HIS love for children to be like HIM and His beloved Son; being a body of voices in unison with the Godhead.

[Moksha]

I thought this post from Bill at the LDS Forum of Beliefnet might be helpful. It aimed to address whether Mormons were monolatrists, monotheists or henotheists.

Mormons are not monolatrists. Confusion naturally arises from the twin LDS beliefs in the separate identity of Christ as the Son of God, and not simply as God in different clothing, along with the concept of eternal progression. Simply put, Mormons believe that God, the Father, is people call him: the Supreme Being, but that his relationship with humanity is much more than that between a boy and his dog. To devout Mormons, God is our father in a very real sense. The purpose of life is to progress toward becoming like him. While that doesn't mean that human beings die and then become gods, it does mean that this life is critical to a much larger process of moving in that direction.

John spoke of this:

Quote:

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure." 1 John 3:2-3

The problem is in the use of the term, "gods." That term is so loaded, it provokes a great deal of confusion. There are at least two uses, both of which are related, but which are distinct enough to merit clarification. A "god," as the term is popularly used, is an object of worship. On the other hand, a "god" may also be something or someone with great power, even if not worshiped. References to angels, demons, seraphim, archangels, spirits and the like are throwbacks to polytheism, with its assortment of supernatural beings. The Greeks and Romans, along with the Egyptians, Mesopotamians and Celts, had a buffet of gods, which were like characters in a soap opera. In some cases, these gods were amusing explanations for natural phenomena. In others, they represented a virtue or a vice.

Zoroastrianism may have been the first to go after polytheism in a big way, though Egypt had Akhenaton (who reduced all the gods to a single deity, the disc of the sun) and Israel had Moses (whose Yahweh started out as the god of the Hebrews and later became the one true and living God). Zoroastrianism posited two gods - Ahura Mazda and Ahriman - one good, the other evil. This went well with the Persian campaign to take over the world and assert control over the armies that had troubled its people. In the Persian mind, life was a struggle between good and evil, between the sons of light and the sons of darkness. Technically speaking, Zoroastrianism wasn't even monotheistic, but its emphasis on a duality took a hammer to the many gods of polytheism. As far as the Persian god, Ahura Mazda, was concerned, if you weren't with him, you were against him. Everybody else was in league with Ahriman, the Prince of Darkness, a figure who would later morph into the Devil.

Christianity has mopped this up, Christianizing a lot of paganism. Festivals based on the zodiac have been Christianized, including Christmas, Easter, Candlemas (which is known in America as Groundhog Day), All Saints Day (which has given way to Halloween), et cetera. Local deities have been replaced by the names of early Christians, but their worship continues as the veneration of saints. Christianity has struggled to reaffirm the basic monotheism of Judaism while deifying a human being: Jesus of Nazareth. For most Christians, the culmination of this effort has been the doctrine of the Trinity, whereby God becomes one god, but in three forms. When he's in Heaven, he's God; when on earth, he's Jesus; when he dwells in your heart, he's the Holy Ghost.

Mormons have upset the applecart by insisting that Jesus was not God, the Father, that his conversations with God were not cunning acts of ventriloquism, that when (at Jesus' baptism), God said, "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased," Jesus wasn't resorting to blue smoke and mirrors. Jesus was not a flesh puppet, nor was he throwing his voice. Nor was Jesus an illusion, as some once contended, in their effort to work out the math. Mormonism envisions one "God" but uses the term, "godhead" to speak of God as a kind of heavenly bishopric or First Presidency. God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are three distinct and separate entities but they form one "God" in the sense that they are a council, perfectly unified in all things.

Jesus told his disciples, "If ye have seen me, ye have seen the Father." To many Christians, that was a hint that Jesus was the Father. But later, in the same Gospels, Jesus prayed to his Father and said, "Not my will but thine be done." He also prayed that his disciples would be "one, even as we are one." Unless God is indecisive, and has multiple personalities, what Jesus was referring to was a unity of thought, not two hamsters in a microwave.

If Jesus was like God and we are to be like Jesus, the logic inevitably leads to something Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount: "Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect." Our bumbling, groping, existence is a kind of infancy, where we learn to walk by faith and make wise choices, growing in power as we grow in understanding. The gifts of the spirit are divine powers, lent to us as the occasion may demand, to go beyond our human limitations in the service of others. To paraphrase something Joseph Smith once said, the only form of human aggrandizement that can be justified is the development of self that occurs in the service of others.

Mormons aspire to be superheroes without capes. I've known a few. In every case, these people have redirected any awe, glory or appreciation towards their source of strength: God, the Father. Jesus once spoke to his disciples about branches and the vine, telling them that the branches could have no power without the vine. His disciples sat at his feet because Jesus sat at the Father's.

That said, the term, "gods," is an awkward one, maybe even recklessly thrown around, though Joseph Smith did in order to get the attention of his generation - which wasn't nearly as squeamish as our own. Joseph would ask them what they thought Jesus meant when he told his disciples to "Seek ye first the kingdom of God." To contemporary Jews, it obviously meant a political kingdom - like Mexico or the Netherlands - but I think Jesus and his contemporaries saw something greater. To Christians during the Middle Ages, it meant the successful takeover, by the Church, of a spiritual turf the size and limits of the old Roman Empire. Today's ecumenicalists might make it the set of all Christians, regardless of their tradition or denomination. To Joseph Smith, it was the Church, and the divine government of the world, but it was also the power of God - not to be taken by force but to be inherited by his sons and daughters by following the path laid out for them.

But where laws of inheritance normally require the death of the testator, eternal progression requires the death of what Paul called "the old man." Each must become a new creature in Christ. Each must cease to see himself or herself as a son of man and begin to see themselves as the sons and daughters of God. Mormons believe that spiritual development, and control over the self, will result in powers and privileges, as well as a treasure and inheritance, that are out of this world.

By human standards, that would make "gods" of us all. Living forever in indescribable glory, we'd be hard-pressed not to see ourselves as such. But that term is misleading since it implies that human beings might become objects of worship, or become rivals to God, the Father. If so, there might be reason to call Mormons "monolatrists." In fact, Brigham Young took heat for his musing on the matter, a little subject known as the Adam-God Theory (Brigham imagined that, by now, Adam would be a god, and if so, he could have been the actual father of Jesus Christ if God, himself, simply came down as the man Adam, much the same way Jesus - who is viewed by many as God - came down as the son of Mary).

But Adam-God was not good doctrine, and was repudiated by later Church leaders. It has been reaffirmed, time and time again, that the only object acceptable for worship is God, the Father. Mormons don't even pray to Jesus so much as pray to God in Jesus's name (though the 12 Nephite disciples in the Book of Mormon did pray to Jesus). Mormons do not see any individual as being on par with God, the Father. While they do hope and pray to live up to their own potential, Mormons never envision a day when they will not bow to God as their Father.

[Interested]

Christianity has mopped this up, Christianizing a lot of paganism. Festivals based on the zodiac have been Christianized, including Christmas, Easter, Candlemas (which is known in America as Groundhog Day), All Saints Day (which has given way to Halloween), et cetera. Local deities have been replaced by the names of early Christians, but their worship continues as the veneration of saints. Christianity has struggled to reaffirm the basic monotheism of Judaism while deifying a human being: Jesus of Nazareth. For most Christians, the culmination of this effort has been the doctrine of the Trinity, whereby God becomes one god, but in three forms. When he's in Heaven, he's God; when on earth, he's Jesus; when he dwells in your heart, he's the Holy Ghost.

This is somewhat misleading. Orthodox Christianity states that the Trinity is God. This does not mean that Christianity has struggled to be monotheistic like Judaism. It is monotheistic. If God can be omnipresent and omniscient and omnipotent, then why not one literal God in three persons. There is no struggle to put this into an Orthodox perspective if you think closely enough.

[YoungMormonRoyalist]

True, but remember that Orthodox Christianity was formulted by numerous councils attended by philosophers, scholars, bishops of conflicting ideas, the first few and most famous being presided over by a pagan emperor.

[Interested]

On the other hand, this is the same Orthodox Christianity Huegenoths died over.

[YoungMormonRoyalist]

What I said is not an attack on the people dieing for their beliefs, nor for the zeal or faith they showed that lead them to martydom. It's just cold hard fact that I was stating.

It's like if someone stated a piece of fact about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and someone were to say, "On the other hand, this is the same doctrine that Joseph Smith and the saints suffered and died for." Regardless of people's belief in something that doesn't remove fact.

Not to demean the martyrdom of the Huguenots, nor any other demoniation of any other religion.

[AnthonyB]

In an exasperated tone he moans...."Ye gods and little fishes"!

Quoting Moksha quote from another forum....

"Christianity has struggled to reaffirm the basic monotheism of Judaism while deifying a human being: Jesus of Nazareth. For most Christians, the culmination of this effort has been the doctrine of the Trinity, whereby God becomes one god, but in three forms. When he's in Heaven, he's God; when on earth, he's Jesus; when he dwells in your heart, he's the Holy Ghost.

Mormons have upset the applecart by insisting that Jesus was not God, the Father, that his conversations with God were not cunning acts of ventriloquism, that when (at Jesus' baptism), God said, "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased," Jesus wasn't resorting to blue smoke and mirrors. Jesus was not a flesh puppet, nor was he throwing his voice. Nor was Jesus an illusion, as some once contended, in their effort to work out the math."

Firstly a man wasn't deified, TC's see it the other way round. A person of God became flesh and dwelt amongst us, a man did not become God.

Secondly TC's do not see Jesus as being a ventriloquist, pretending to talk to the Father, they are seperate persons. Capable of communicating and expressing emotions to each other. It is not "three forms" but three persons.

"When he's in Heaven, he's God; when on earth, he's Jesus; when he dwells in your heart, he's the Holy Ghost."

The above line is what we would "modalism". TC's believe Jesus was a person of God before his incarnation, remains to this day our high priest in the true temple in heaven and will return in his ressurected form to earth. The Holy Ghosts role in the trinity is to be God that can be within all believers, but he still remains a person within the trinity, even if there were no believers for him to indwell He would still be a person of God.

Still think the BoM gives a better defence of trinitarianism then the Bible.

BoM 3 testimonies

"And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God."

BoM Title Page

"And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God"

Simple IMHO the BoM declares there is "One God" and "Jesus is the Eternal God." The LDS scriptures clearly declares one God and that it there are other Gods, then they cannot be eternal ones.

BoM -Introduction

"Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” "

Can any of the LDS posters from the BoM (and not from any other work) show me a text that clearly states that there is 3 Gods (or more) and that are only one in purpose? (I understand you see that doctrine as coming mostly from latter revelations but I'm just curious as to if and where you would see support for that belief in the BoM.)

[Hemidakota]

Here I thought, someone knew the biblical versus....here is one for you, what did Stephen see when he was being stoned at the hands of Saul [Read Acts}? Whom did he witnessed as the heavens parted?

[AnthonyB]

Hemi,

I don't have a problem with the persons existing in differing spatial locations. The idea that the Father was crucified when the Son was, was declared heretical very early on.

I expext to see Jesus as a resurrected man in heaven. I really don't know how to describe the Father, John's descriptions clearly show he was blown away by the sight, although I might concede that if He so chose we could perceive Him in human-like form.

Why do LDS always use the seperation of the persons to deny the oneness of God? I suppose for me, a perfect person would be unified whilst still be themselves. That is the goal that God has set for all of us to become ever more perfect so that we may become ever more one with Him.

[Hemidakota]

The Godhead are in unison as to the Plan of Salvation for HIS children, which we are created in HIS image [see Genesis]. Anthony, they are three distinct beings. Now, to describe the FATHER, if you had seen the Son, face-to-face, the only difference would be a very slight height and facial differences. The Holy Ghost on the other hand, is unique and very different from the FATHER and the Son.

As to being in unison as the Godhead, all the FATHERs throughout this universe are in unison... :)

[Traveler]

This is somewhat misleading. Orthodox Christianity states that the Trinity is God. This does not mean that Christianity has struggled to be monotheistic like Judaism. It is monotheistic. If God can be omnipresent and omniscient and omnipotent, then why not one literal God in three persons. There is no struggle to put this into an Orthodox perspective if you think closely enough.

G-d cannot be omnipresent and omniscient and omnipotent and be the only one of his "kind". The flaw of the Traditional Trinitarian (monotheistic) G-d is that he can only deal with that which is inferior and flawed and G-d therefore, lacks the power, intelligence, grace and everything else needed to deal with another being like himself - yet he demands that all his creation do this very thing that he cannot.

Personally I like the concept that he deals very well with things that are like him and he does not lack the intelligence or the power to bring man up to his level (with no limitations). Not only can G-d come and live among us (Jesus is this example) but it is possible for man to be exalted and live (quite comfortably and happy) with him. I always wonder when someone thinks they have a personal relationship with G-d and yet they also believe that they have nothing truly in common with him. I guess being personal with someone means something different to me.

The Traveler

[Hemidakota]

To answer that question for others on what Stephen witnessed being stoned:

¶ When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with [their] teeth.

But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. – Acts 7:54-56

[Traveler]

To answer that question for others on what Stephen witnessed being stoned:

¶ When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with [their] teeth.

But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. – Acts 7:54-56

Interesting - According to the ancient covenants and symbols there is a symbolic name given to someone who's rightful place is at the right hand or right side of G-d. The name of that symbol - I will leave as a exercise for the reader (a comment that comes from my math background).

The Traveler

[Interested]

G-d cannot be omnipresent and omniscient and omnipotent and be the only one of his "kind". The flaw of the Traditional Trinitarian (monotheistic) G-d is that he can only deal with that which is inferior and flawed and G-d therefore, lacks the power, intelligence, grace and everything else needed to deal with another being like himself - yet he demands that all his creation do this very thing that he cannot.

There can be only one Omnipotent in the universe.

Edit - What if the god's will contradict's eachother?

Edited December 3, 2008 by Interested

[Hemidakota]

I guess GOD is alone and by himself. Let us forget about the woman!

[AnthonyB]

Hemi,

I'm not aware of anywhere the Bible uses "being" to describe God but it and the BoM does use "one God" but never "three Gods" to describe the Godhead.

What do you think it means to call Jesus "the eternal God"? (Obviously you know the "the" is a definite article and the straight forward reading would be that He alone is the eternal God, which is not a problem for a trinitarian but I see as problematic for LDS)

I have no problems with Stephen seeing a Jesus standing at the right hand of God. However "right hand of God" could be an idiom meaning that Jesus was in a position of authority. If a leader calls someone their "right hand man", we don't think that that person is literally the right hand of the leader.