Does G-d worship?

[Misshalfway]

God's ways are not our ways. I think that pretty much says it all. It's immaterial to me whether or not Jesus worships the Father. They are one....and frankly that is a relationship we know relatively little about and I am completely ok with that. I got more important things to do and I think God thinks that too. He's the Mr. Miyagi doing whatever and we are the ones he has told to "paint the fence."

[Moksha]

No - I am LDS but in my travels I have encountered this notion plus in all my studies I have not found an exception in ancient scripture to such modification as a means of reverence. I use this method on the internet to remind me that sacred things should be treated with great care.

The Traveler

Not much possibility that this computer text could ever get smeared as was the case when this superstition was born of writing the name of God in the dirt. If the More Good Foundation servers when down, then Google could still find the stored cache for you.

[prisonchaplain]

This is turning out much more different and difficult than I thought??? Is the reason we worship G-d only because he is G-d?

I would submit that G-d gains nothing by our worship of him - any goodness that comes from our worship is what we gain - not G-d. There is no benefit that G-d gains. The only possible gain or merit is ours and those around us.

This, imho, is human reasoning. We don't get why God would find pleasure in his creation singing adoration to him. Yet he calls for such.the longest book in the Bible is dedicated to songs of worship. Several scenes in the book of Revelation are of pure worship. We can do much as worship--but singing and directing our thoughts, our love, our adoration towards him--this is worship, pure and holy and good. There's been a revival of this kind of worship in churches during the last 30 years or so. Me thinks God is pleased.

[Jamie123]

No. There is no such tenet.

You surprise me. I've heard that idea often enough to suspect that it's more than just an urban myth. Even Hordak said it was true.

Are you saying that it's not a fundamental belief but a debated doctrine? (Something like the Adam-God theory.)

[Dr T]

However, since every part and tag of creation stems from Him, can we not imagine that He celebrates this creation as a manifestation of divine purpose.

Hi Moksha. :) I'd agree that every part of His creation celebrates His divine purpose "the heavens proclaim His handiwork" and during creation we see (read) that He was pleased with what He had created as evidenced by His calling it "good." Furthermore, we see that His crowing jewel was creation of man as he said, and it was "Very good." That says a lot to me. I think God wants a relationship with us and loves us all but I do not take those things are Him worshiping His creation. It's 1:45 AM and I'm dead tired (I was still working) so maybe I didn't read what you were saying to me very well. Thanks for the post Moksha. :)

[Vanhin]

You surprise me. I've heard that idea often enough to suspect that it's more than just an urban myth. Even Hordak said it was true.

Are you saying that it's not a fundamental belief but a debated doctrine? (Something like the Adam-God theory.)

This article should help you out. Nature of God/Infinite regress of Gods - FAIRMormon

We all accept that God the Father once entered mortality and received an exalted body of flesh and bone. Beyond that we do not know the details. Some of us believe that that experience was closer to the experience of Jesus Christ than the rest of our's- meaning He was God before, during, and after, like Christ.

I think that understanding is more in harmony with the scriptures, than the idea that there is an infinite regress of gods.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Hemidakota]

This is turning out much more different and difficult than I thought??? Is the reason we worship G-d only because he is G-d?

I would submit that G-d gains nothing by our worship of him - any goodness that comes from our worship is what we gain - not G-d. There is no benefit that G-d gains. The only possible gain or merit is ours and those around us.

Here is another thought - Is "service" a form of worship? Do we not worship who we serve? If we serve Satan we worship Satan in our service.

Jesus said that the greatest in the Kingdom of G-d is the servant or the one that provides the greatest service. Not the mighty and all powerful that make everyone bow down but the humble servant that lifts and glorifies others.

And what about glorifying someone – is that not a form of worship. When we glorify and exalt G-d is that not worshiping?

I submit that serving is worshiping and glorifying others is also worship and no being in the universe serves others and glorifies others more than G-d.

The Traveler

Remember, what constitutes GOD’s power or authority, is HONOR. Then, what is honor? It is HIS children and the creation who honor’s GOD and gives it the power and the authority to form, create, and excise dominion in righteousness over all which is in HIS sphere.

There are different meanings of what is considered ‘worship’ when comparing this too our own culture but again, what is true worship of our own parents - is it too honor them? As it is for the very Christ to honor His FATHER! As it is for us to honor our Savior and our Heavenly Parents. It is not that we bow down as those too the claimed kings, presidents, or any worldly ruler. It is too honor…

Excellent post...

[Gatorman]

Just a few bullet points, based on what I read in general -

1 - My children do not recognize my parents as their parents, yet, I do. Similar to how God MAY see his Father as 'special', while we do not.

2 - I find great joy and fulfillment when my children do a good job at something, set a good example for others, etc. When they do good, it brings me joy as well. Ergo, Heavenly Father is served by us being good.

3 - Does God worship his Father? Perhaps. However, that fact is not germaine to my existence here or necessary for my salvation. So, while it is possible, it is not a necessary doctrinal point.

4 - Does God worshipping his Father make him any less? Well, I certainly hope not. Otherwise, the fact that I have parents would make me less of a parent.

5 - What is worship? To me, it is accepting His word to a deep enough degree to give up ones own will to accomplish that which He wants us to do. Though, saying to give up our will may be a misstatement. Perhaps, the better way to put it is taking his will as our own, desiring what he wants, and doing it. Such that service, prayer, sacrament, being fruitful and multiplying, sharing his word, etc, etc, etc, are all forms of worship. However, so is loving our fellow man, doing for others, etc.

[Hemidakota]

It only becomes doctrinal for those who are considered the Church of the First-Born and not for the church as a whole. Part of the eternal instructions for them is to know how to worship, whom to worship, and what is being worship [see D&C 93].

[Dr T]

Hi Vanhin,

Thanks for the link. I read it, have a problem with the infinite regression of gods (I wrote about it a long time ago on this site) and reject it as well. I do not see the problem of belief in an infinite God (as I do) also falling into the same category of infinite regress problems. Is that refering to time? Thanks

[hordak]

You surprise me. I've heard that idea often enough to suspect that it's more than just an urban myth. Even Hordak said it was true.

Are you saying that it's not a fundamental belief but a debated doctrine? (Something like the Adam-God theory.)

From the OFFICIAL Gospel Principles manual. This is the manual/class that is taught to new members.

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: “When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 268).

Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345–46).

So. You must begin at the bottom to become exalted. God was ones a man like us. He lived on another planet.

Now this says nothing about whether or not God had a God. In the interest of fairness it's possible that God was the first exalted being. However i think this causes more problems the the infinite progression. If God was once a man like me, lived on an earth like me, and became a God on his own then what do i need him for?

It should also be noted

FAIR is staffed completely by volunteers. It is not owned, controlled by, or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief, or practice.

FAIR is as official as LDS.NET

So God having another God in NOT doctrine (that i know of) but being a man like us and living on another planet is.

Edited November 18, 2009 by hordak

[RipplecutBuddha]

No. There is no such tenet.

Lots of things that sound reasonable are not "fair to assume". This is one of them.

For my part, I have no issue with accepting this as true. It makes sense to me, and it fits well within what I accept as gospel truth.

However, as Vort has stated, there is nothing at all in the scriptures that states any of this in any way. Speculation can be fun, but it can also be dangerous to our faith and testimonies.

There are plenty of issues within the scriptures that we have yet to deal with before tackling the idea of whether or not God worhships another God.

One of the major problems with speculation is that it leads us 'beyond the mark' of what the point of the gospel is. We'll know the answer to this, and many other questions like it soon enough. Let's focus on being worthy to find out for ourselves.

[bytor2112]

I think true worship is being obedient to ALL of the commandments. After all Christ said,"....if you love me keep my commandments." And yes, I absolutely believe that Christ worships the Father.....he is after all the Father of us all, including Christ.

[Jamie123]

First of all I'd like to thank Vort: This isn't the first time he's pointed out sloppy thinking on my part. However, I'm more indebted to Hordak and Vanhin for giving a proper explanation.

I've always understood the "eternal regression of Gods" to be central to Mormonism (though obviously not taught to investigators for fear of scaring them off with such strange notions). Thinking about it now though, I feel I may have picked up the notion from reading Anti-Mormon books and (wrongly) interpreted the Mormon "God was once a man" stance as confirmation. The idea that God was always God even before becoming mortal is (in the Mormon context) quite new to me. I wonder now whether Mormonism is perhaps closer to traditional Christianity than I'd previously imagined.

Notwithstanding this, I do vaguely recall having a conversation which went something like this:

Me: [some question about God having once been a man.]

Missionary 1: Well... [short moment of hesitation] ...we believe that there was once a man called Joe who...

Missionary 2: [To Missionary 1] No! Don't tell him that!

Me: [Confused] Joe? Are you talking about Joseph Smith?

Missionary 1: No.

This conversation (if it happened at all) took place about 20 years ago. I'd be tempted to think that I dreamed it, except that years later I read a book by ***** ********** (an evangelical Bible professor and ex-Mormon with whom I've corresponded a bit) which gave the full story of "Joe" who later became Elohim, which seems to support the eternal regression idea (though that could be down to the way ********** presented it). Edited November 19, 2009 by Jamie123
Blanked out the name of Anti-Mormon writer for fear of enraging the mods.

[RanMan]

I'm in the camp of those who do not subscribe to the infinite regress of gods. I think God the Father is the Most High God, and that "God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits." (History of the Church, 6:310–12; capitalization modernized; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on Apr. 7, 1844, in Nauvoo, Illinois; reported by Wilford Woodruff, Willard Richards, Thomas Bullock, and William Clayton; see also appendix, page 562, item 3.)

I think our orthodox doctrine, as found in the scriptures, supports this point of view. There is no indication in any of the scriptures that anyone or anything but God and the Lamb is to be worshiped. However, I will admit, that we do not know everything, and until God gives us more light an knowledge about the topic, your guess is as good as mine. :)

For more on the topic, see Nature of God/Infinite regress of Gods - FAIRMormon.

Regards,

Vanhin

I lean towards that belief as well. All of this had to start somewhere; it can't continually regress as you say. Why not start with our Heavenly Father as anywhere else. Although, either way, I don't think it matters much.

:)

[Vort]

First of all I'd like to thank Vort: This isn't the first time he's pointed out sloppy thinking on my part. However, I'm more indebted to Hordak and Vanhin for giving a proper explanation.

Btw, Jamie, I wasn't trying to be cute. I could have been more helpful in offering a wider explanation, but my point was that there are many things on which we simply don't have a good understanding. As important as it is for Saints to know the doctrine of the Church, it is often equally important to know what is NOT the doctrine of the Church. The ideas being discussed are not Church doctrine.

I've always understood the "eternal regression of Gods" to be central to Mormonism (though obviously not taught to investigators for fear of scaring them off with such strange notions). Thinking about it now though, I feel I may have picked up the notion from reading Anti-Mormon books and (wrongly) interpreted the Mormon "God was once a man" stance as confirmation.

This sounds reasonable.

Just to be clear: The Savior taught that if we seek, we shall find, and if we ask, we shall receive. The Church's policy is to give to those who ask; when someone asks for knowledge about doctrine, we give it to them. There are only two exceptions that I can think of:

• Those who are not prepared to receive. Another gospel principle is "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little". We give milk before we give meat. It does no good for us to tell people a bunch of knowledge that they have no framework for processing. God himself does not give us all we ask for up front; he allows us to grow into the knowledge we seek.

• Those who ask questions for which no answer has been revealed. There exist in the Church many ideas that take root but that don't really have a doctrinal basis. Some of these become widespread and are rooted out only with great difficulty; others have more limited scope.

Regarding point #2 above, I suspect that your "Joe is God" example is one of the latter examples of an idea that takes hold among a limited group of Saints. Somewhere, somehow, someone came up with what they thought was just an absolutely marvelous example of how the average Joe could become God Himself (which, btw, is also manifestly not LDS doctrine but is still widely believed), and the story spread among a small subset of Saints. One missionary knew and believed this story, but when he tried to use it, his wiser companion, recognizing the story as false doctrine, shushed him while trying to spare his companion the embarrassment of undue attention. At least, that's my take.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Vort

[Vanhin]

I lean towards that belief as well. All of this had to start somewhere; it can't continually regress as you say. Why not start with our Heavenly Father as anywhere else. Although, either way, I don't think it matters much.

:)

I agree. I would point out that in my way of looking at it, there is no start... it is endless, without beginning of days or end of years. God simply explains infinite things to us in terms that are finite, because of our current state.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Traveler]

First of all I'd like to thank Vort: This isn't the first time he's pointed out sloppy thinking on my part. However, I'm more indebted to Hordak and Vanhin for giving a proper explanation.

I've always understood the "eternal regression of Gods" to be central to Mormonism (though obviously not taught to investigators for fear of scaring them off with such strange notions). Thinking about it now though, I feel I may have picked up the notion from reading Anti-Mormon books and (wrongly) interpreted the Mormon "God was once a man" stance as confirmation. The idea that God was always God even before becoming mortal is (in the Mormon context) quite new to me. I wonder now whether Mormonism is perhaps closer to traditional Christianity than I'd previously imagined.

Notwithstanding this, I do vaguely recall having a conversation which went something like this:

This conversation (if it happened at all) took place about 20 years ago. I'd be tempted to think that I dreamed it, except that years later I read a book by ***** ********** (an evangelical Bible professor and ex-Mormon with whom I've corresponded a bit) which gave the full story of "Joe" who later became Elohim, which seems to support the eternal regression idea (though that could be down to the way ********** presented it).

The best example and the best way to understand the Father is by the example of Jesus Christ. With that understanding let me take a familiar phrase and break it down so that all can understand the LDS perspective.

“As man is, G-d once was” à As man is Jesus Christ came and lived on this earth.

“And as G-d is, man may become” à As Jesus Christ was resurrected in glory and given place at the “right hand” of the Father so man can become resurrected in glory and given place at the “right hand” of the Father.

I submit that there is no better source or better understanding of the Father than understanding Jesus Christ. I also submit that any effort to differentiate these two separate individuals in thinking their purpose, mission or devotion to principles is to be compartmentalized and separated to any degree is a unholy thought and doctrine of heresy. I also believe to teach against such a true and enlightened principle as given above is at its heart and core not just anti-LDS but anti-Christ.

The Traveler

[Jamie123]

Another gospel principle is "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little". We give milk before we give meat. It does no good for us to tell people a bunch of knowledge that they have no framework for processing.

I can certainly understand your point here. A person wishing to study mathematics from scratch would be ill-advised to begin with a course on Advanced Calculus. To learn anything soundly you need to learn it in small steps.

However, the downside is that there are many people (like I was back then) who are unready to explore these things spiritually, but who nonetheless have a hunger for knowledge. If they are denied information from the true source, they will (human nature being what it is) seek it elsewhere and fill their heads with distorted stereotypes.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Jamie123
Removed some observations about Freemasonry which are not really relevant here

[Vort]

However, the downside is that there are many people (like I was back then) who are unready to explore these things spiritually, but who nonetheless have a hunger for knowledge. If they are denied information from the true source, they will (human nature being what it is) seek it elsewhere and fill their heads with distorted stereotypes.

True. So what is the solution? Do we go ahead and answer the questions, giving them information that they don't have a framework for understanding yet? Or do we just clam up and refuse to answer, thus furthering the "secret teachings" whisperings?

The best course seems to be that we give simple, direct answers at their level of understanding. However, this can be very problematic, and requires us to know what they think about things. Otherwise, we cannot give a "true" answer.

For example: Someone says, "You Mormons believe you can become God, right?" What is the truthful answer? It depends on that person's level of understanding:

• For a person with little understanding of Mormonism, the most truthful answer is, "No." We no more believe we can become God then we believe we can become Aunt Mildred. Nor do we have any specific doctrine teaching us that we might occupy the same position that God now occupies over us (though this is commonly believed among many Saints). Since these are likely to be what the person is talking about, the negative response is the most truthful.
• For a person with a deeper understanding of Mormonism, the most truthful answer may be, "In a sense". We certainly do believe the Biblical teaching of Christ, that we may inherit all that the Father hath. We certainly do believe Paul's teaching that we become heirs to the Father and co-heirs with Christ. So in this case, the most truthful answer is probably a guarded positive.

Anyone who asks such a question is very likely in the first group, however. The point is, a truthful answer depends on the understanding of the hearer.

[Justice]

This introduces a lot of questions. For example do G-d ask us to do something he would not? If G-d does not worship how can we be condemned if we don't? If G-d does worship - should we not worship what he does? If we are truly one with G-d - should we not worship what he does? If we are one with G-d, we ought to know what G-d worships.

Thoughts???

The Traveler

I think we would be surprised to know what God worships. I think we believe what it means to worship, but I think we really don't see it how God does.

I believe that just because we believe someone or something to be great in our heart, that does not constitute true worship to God. I believe God would judge what we worship by our actions, or by what we spend the most of our time doing. He said He would judge us by our "works."

If we apply this to Him, what would we get?

Moses 1:

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

I believe His children mean more to Him than anything else. I believe it's what makes Him who He is. If His children were not the most important thing to Him, then He would not be God.

I think it's a stretch to say He worships us, because of the definition most people think of when they see the word. But, I believe "we" are His greatest joy. He cries at our failures and rejoices in our successes.

I believe He loves us more than we can even understand.

So, I'm not sure if a Being who has reached this point of total selflessness needs anything but His children (and wife of course) to "worship." His family is the most precious thing He has.

One of my favorite scriptures about this topic is found in the Book of Mormon:

1 Nephi 11:

20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.

21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?

22 And I answered him, saying: Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself broad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things.

I wonder what is a reprentation of "the love of God?" And, I wonder what would be the most desirable thing?

I think I know. :)

[Justice]

I believe Captain Moroni understood this, and I believe he showed us what is important to all that are good, and what should be important to us... even more than important, essential.

Alma 46:

12 And it came to pass that he rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it—In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole.

These are the things that God holds dear. So dear, in fact, that He allows many of His children to NOT choose Him. This is an eternal truth that Moroni held deep and was willing to give up everything, even his life, to maintain.

The question does God worship is a tricky one. I think that all His attention is given to saving His children, which I guess could be considered worshiping where He gained that ability.

[Jamie123]

For a person with a deeper understanding of Mormonism, the most truthful answer may be, "In a sense". We certainly do believe the Biblical teaching of Christ, that we may inherit all that the Father hath. We certainly do believe Paul's teaching that we become heirs to the Father and co-heirs with Christ. So in this case, the most truthful answer is probably a guarded positive.

This reminds me of two of my favourite books of all time:

Return of the Prodigal Son by Henri Nouwen, which explores the different aspects of the three characters in the parable: The prodigal himself, the father and the elder brother. In the last chapter, Fr. Nouwen talks of the son "becoming the father" - not by taking God's place in future worlds, but by inheriting a share of His suffering and welcoming home other prodigals.

The Weight of Glory by C.S. Lewis talks about the humility needed to understand that everybody we meet - even the dullest and most unimportant - may become beings beings so glorious that we could barely comprehend them:

It may be too much for each to think too much of his own potential glory hereafter; it is hardly possible to think too often or too deeply about that of his neighbor. The load, or weight, or burden of my neighbor’s glory should be laid on my back, a load so heavy only humility can carry it, and the backs of the proud shall be broken. It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting you can talk to may one day be a creature, which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of those destinations.

I suspect this is the kind of "deification" you're talking about, I can just begin to understand it. The idea of "populating future planets" has has always fascinated me but left me emotionally cold. I don't think I'm the only one to have felt this way, and it's a pity that many Mormon critics have chosen to present this idea as the Mormon "orthodoxy". It goes to illustrate what Krister Stendahl (who was not a Mormon) once said about the importance of learning from people themselves and not from their critics.

[Traveler]

Here is a thought. The attributes that G-d possesses, he possesses and has become them because he worships them. These attributes that G-d worships have therefore become a part of him or one with him and therefore are the same things that we worship when we worship him. As we worship him because of his righteous attributes the more we become one with him – including one with him in worship.

Example – G-d is love because he worships love and has become that love that he worships. Therefore because G-d is love then we worship love as well as G-d . To worship one is to worship the other because they are one. Of course G-d is much more than love but as we learn more of G-d the more there is that we understand what we worship and the more like him we become.

The Traveler

[Hemidakota]

How does one obtain Fatherhood in mortality? Didn't the Savior tell the Prophet Joseph Smith how He received the fullness?