As God is man may be?

[mikbone]

Lorenzo Snow's famous couplet, "As man is God once was, as God is man may be." Has intrigued me during my entire life. I believe in it Completely. Essentially I believe that it better represents Morminism than any other sentence. It answers all the big questions.

Where did we come from?

Why are we here?

Where are we going?

During my spiritual education I have spent more time studying and pondering this statement than any other principle in the gospel. And I have learned much. No doubt many would say that I have completly fallen off the straight and narrow path. But I think not, it has strengthened my testimony and given me great peace of mind. I know who I am.

Here is the issue. There seems to be so much variation in the beliefs as to what the second half of Lorenzo Snow's statement actually means... I wanted to make a poll but I realized that I have no idea what many people's intrepertation of the couplet actually is. So I'm gonna give it a go and ask for alternate explanations. Ill start with the most common.

1) It dosen't matter. Keep to the basics: Faith, Repentance, Baptism & Gift of the Holy Ghost. Although this is no doubt the most common explanation, I find it unsatisfactory.

2) We can become exactly as Heavenly Father is Now (although we can never catch Him in glory because He is forever progressing as well). Essentially that we will eventually be able to create children spiritually. And our spiritual firstborn will serve as our savior to all our spiritual offspring. We will create spiritual worlds/universe which our spiritual firstborn will physically create and save.

Of all the reasonable ideas that I have studied this concept is probably the most commonly accepted. It does have a major flaw though. Primarily that of John 5:19, and 3 Ne 27: 21. Joseph Smith expounded on John 5:19 within the King Follett Discourse and essentially stated that Elohim himself was a savior and that Jehovah is following the example that Elohim gave. This presents a huge problem. If Jehovah could only do that which His Father did than How can we expect our spiritual firstborn to follow an example which we ourselves were not able to provide. Will our "firstborn" have to leapfrog us and look upon Jehovah for an acceptable example???

3) The previous flaw gives rise to a third option. That we will be gods but not GODS. Savior GODS are a special lot of royal Firstborns. We will assist in the work to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. But not like Elohim and Jehovah. This explanation works but it makes Lorenzo Snow's Couplet null and void.

4) There is no eternal regression or progression of Gods. God the Father, Elohim is the Most High God and forever will be. Jehovah/Christ is the Savior. We will become Kings and Priests and will be able to assist our father but our roles have not exactly been defined.

Edited October 25, 2010 by mikbone

[captmoroniRM]

I'm sorry you find explanation number 1 unsatisfying, but it really is the best one. It's not so much that it doesn't matter, its more that a full comprehension of what President Snow's couplet meant isn't a requirement for salvation. People have a hard enough time with the concepts of faith and repentance and the whole enduring to the end thing, that unless you've got those down, trying to understand President Snow is of much lower priority.

Also, very little has been revealed on the subject. In time, all things will be revealed, as God has many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God waiting for us to be revealed. But the revelation of those things is based on the faith of His people. For example, the writings of the Brother of Jared, which won't be revealed until we have faith equal to that of the Brother of Jared.

[Wingnut]

Please refer to these existing threads:

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/30427-what-does-mean-god-once-man.html

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/19280-god-once-man.html

http://www.lds.net/forums/share/17806-lorenzo-snow-couplet.html

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/13832-uncomfortable-doctrine.html

http://www.lds.net/forums/learn-about-mormon-church/12277-what-doctrine.html

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/10963-how-god-obtained-his-godhood.html

http://www.lds.net/forums/christian-beliefs-board/10700-do-you-think-god-once-man.html

This is not even a comprehensive list of the threads that have discussed this topic already on this site.

[mikbone]

One vote for #1 by captmoroniRM

Thanks Wingnut, I've been going through the list and already found one applicable post, by Vanhin

I, on the other hand, go with a different take on this. In my opinion, our scriptures currently do not mention or leave very much room for an infinite regress of "worshipped" gods, though it is clear that the children of God can be considered "gods", but not equal in honor, like the Father. There is nothing to support the idea that we will be worhsipped as the Father and Son are. The closest thing is that "angels will be subject" to us and we will "bear the souls of men" if we are exalted (see D&C 132). However, all things considered, the scriptures as a whole forbid the worship of any other God (Guide to the Scriptures: Worship).

From our modern scriptures and many of the other teachings of Joseph Smith, for example, I find compelling evidence that both God the Father and Jesus Christ are infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting, and that we too are co-eternal with God. The Book of Moses, for example paints a picture of a God and his Christ, who endlessly create worlds and bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of mankind (see Moses 1). Joseph Smith taught that God found himself in the midst of spirits and glory, and that He authored the plan of salvation. Said Joseph:

The first principles of man are self-existent with God. 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. (LDS.org - Ensign Article - The King Follett Sermon)

The Book of Abraham and all of scripture describe the pre-mortal Jesus, or Jehovah, as on like unto God (Abr. 3:24), and the Book of Mormon makes the case the Christ is the Eternal God, and that he himself is infinite and eternal. The Doctrine and Covenants says the following in unequivocal terms:

By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;

...by the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and of the Son; Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen. (D&C 20:17,27-28)

Others are free to believe what they will, but I can only conclude from the scriptures that there are no other "Gods" in the sense that they will be objects of worship, and that Elohim is the "Most High God" - the "God of gods". I do believe that we can become like them in every way, but we cannot surpass them in that honor.

Jesus Christ was God before, during, and after his mortal ministry; and thus, I believe that God the Father was God before, during, and after any mortal experience that He passed through to gain his body, and like the Son, had the power to resurrect himself. I believe that exalted men and women continue the work of the Father by bearing the souls of men, and are made kings and queens, priests and priestesses unto the Most High God. We will have dominion in the Father's kingdom, and bring honor and glory to God and the Lamb forever. This is what I believe has been going on forever. We will be one with the Father and represent him in the many wolrds that we preside over, like Jesus Christ does, but Elohim will ever be the Most High God, the One True God and the object of our worship.

This is my faith as a latter-day saint. It's what I believe is in harmony with binding scripture that we have.

Regards,

Vanhin

P.S. For more info on the two prevailing thoughts on this matter, see the following article: Nature of God/Infinite regress of Gods - FAIRMormon

I think that this view is becoming more popular. I don't personally like it, but it does have some internal validity. Ill try to condense it and give it a listing of its own

There are 2 great documents that do support a infinite regression of Gods though. One is the Joseph Smith June 16, 1844 Sermon in the Grove discourse as recorded in the Thomas Bullock Report. The other is hymn 284 If You Could Hie to Kolob. There are many others. But these are both plain and precious in my mind.

Edited October 25, 2010 by mikbone

[mikbone]

If you don't mind going over the deep end... (warning, going into ... non-traditional stuff here ).

This is how it could work:

Adam is in fact God.

Adam (like Jesus) sacrificed his life that we might live in Eden by eating the fruit...

Jesus watched Adam eat the fruit...

When we are perfected (as Adam was perfect in Eden) we will be made Lord over a perfect world (as Adam was Lord over a perfect world). In order to bring forth children, we too will have to eat the fruit, transgress, and start the process....

I prob should not have posted that .

Adam?God doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later."

Good point, you do have a valid alternate explanation there.

For the sake of sanity though I will choose to ignore the Adam - God Theory

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Our Own Liahona

Another matter. We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.

I also like Bruce R. McConkie's statement "anyone who has read the Book of Moses, and anyone who has received the temple endowment and who yet believes the Adam-God theory does not deserve to be saved." BYU Devotional, June 1, 1980. This is what McConkie said in the audio recording of this sermon. The print version has subsequently been changed to "has no excuse whatever for being led astray by it." Compare PDF text with MP3 audio at 26:48 :)

Edited October 25, 2010 by mikbone

[rameumptom]

The problem with Snow's couplet (and for that matter the KFD), is that it doesn't give us enough information. It is NOT doctrine, because it is not well defined. It is a teaching that is true. But doctrine requires that it be defined well enough so that the members can generally agree on the key points.

For example, the Word of Wisdom is doctrine that teaches us general keys to health. Some members go further than what is explicitly taught in the WoW (don't drink Coke, for example). While it may be good sense, and a smart thing to do, yet that is not doctrinal. Drinking Coke will not keep one out of the temple, however drinking coffee will.

We know we can become gods, as the scriptures testify of it frequently. We know we will be kings and priests (or a kingdom of priests) and reign with God. However, we do not know anything specifically beyond that. It becomes speculation.

So, while I accept Pres Snow's couplet (which recent research suggests it was originally from Brigham Young, not Snow), we do not know enough to go beyond the couplet without speculation.

[Jamie123]

One of my favourite books of all times is Henri Nouwen's Return of the Prodigal Son. Nouwen (who was Catholic btw, not LDS) examines the three characters from Jesus' story - the younger son, the older son and the father - from different perspectives, and his final conclusion is we should strive to "become the father".

It's easy to think of God as a very powerful being, sitting on a cloud and firing thunderbolts around, but Nouwen reckons that's not really what God is about. Really He's about the complete giving of Himself in love for His children, welcoming home the prodigals.

And that kind of "total giving" is something we mortals can already strive for. Maybe that is what Lorenzo Snow meant by "as God is, Man may be".

[Traveler]

There are too many bad assumptions with this thread. I believe CaptmoroniRM had the best answer when they stated that there is limited revelation and understanding. Because of the fall there are many things concerning the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost that must be accepted on faith.

The problem is that bad assumptions result incorrect doctrine. Allow me to illustrate. Let us suppose that my father is a shoe salesman and I am studying to be an engineer. Also I am seeking to establish righteous covenants with the L-rd and in so doing I receive a patriarchal blessing where I am advised to seek to become a father like my earthly father that also happens to be an ordained High Priest. In consideration of my blessing I drop out of (worldly) school so that I can become a shoe salesman just like my dad. The true doctrine is that I seek a righteous woman willing and desirous of children like unto my mother and magnify my priesthood callings according to my father’s example.

Jesus is our example. We should follow him. Though we will not suffer for the sins of all mankind but we can righteously and forgivingly suffer for the sins of those that transgress against us. Jesus is also our example of Brother Snow’s comments. As man is (mortal and able to suffer and die) G-d once was (Jesus was able to suffer and die) and as G-d is (Jesus is resurrected in righteousness and sitting of the right hand of the Father) man may become (resurrected in righteousness, an heir to the kingdom and sitting at the right hand of the Father.)

The Traveler

[martybess]

One of my favourite books of all times is Henri Nouwen's Return of the Prodigal Son. Nouwen (who was Catholic btw, not LDS) examines the three characters from Jesus' story - the younger son, the older son and the father - from different perspectives, and his final conclusion is we should strive to "become the father".

It's easy to think of God as a very powerful being, sitting on a cloud and firing thunderbolts around, but Nouwen reckons that's not really what God is about. Really He's about the complete giving of Himself in love for His children, welcoming home the prodigals.

And that kind of "total giving" is something we mortals can already strive for. Maybe that is what Lorenzo Snow meant by "as God is, Man may be".

I think there is some validity to this.

It is ironic that we often feel that the suffering that comes to sinners as a result of their sin is "fair," that it is less deserving of pity than the suffering of innocents. "Well," we say, watching the news in appalled fascination as an exposed addict's face contorts with shame and anguish, "he brought it on himself." We almost celebrate the addict's humiliation, comforting ourselves with the notion that he is nothing like us nor anyone we care for. Sometimes we think with pity about the wicked one's poor parents, or spouse, or children—but the sinner himself? He deserves whatever he gets, we comment to each other. And those who secretly know that they have committed the same actions and deserve the same punishment nod in agreement, hating themselves more than ever.

How strange it is that the Lord views sinners so differently from the way we view them. At times, He almost seems to downplay the suffering of righteous people by comparison. While it seems that He might concentrate harder on preserving the innocent from all the trials and inconveniences of life, the Lord incongruously spends almost all His time worrying about the guilty. Instead of concentrating all His approval on those who resist temptation, the Good Shepherd takes time to "leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it." (Luke 15:4.)

During His ministry on earth, Jesus spent a good deal of His time with the wicked, forgiving their sins and incurring the wrath of the law-abiding Pharisees. After all the pains we take to be upright, He tells us that "joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, who need no repentance." (Luke 15:7.)

That is partly what Gethsemane was for, to let the Savior understand through His own experience what we suffer when we sin. And even He, who walked calmly through persecution and to death, pleaded with His Father that that particular cup might be taken from Him. Christ has felt every depth of horror, every shock of realization, every hopeless yearning that a deed could be undone that all of us combined will ever feel. And so He knows that the pains of the righteous, however unbearable they may seem, are trivial compared to the pains of the guilty. He and His prophets, like Alma, are filled "with great anxiety even unto pain" that we avoid such anguish if at all possible. (Alma 13:27.) The Lord and His servants urge all people to repentance, not because they do not understand how hard it is to repent, but because they do understand what hell and depth of pains the sinners life is like.

We like the father in the prodigal son must learn this kind of love, understanding, compassion. And "as God is man may become" takes on a whole new view and meaning.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm obviously not qualified to vote FOR any of the options, but I would encourage any LDS who want to engage other Christians in dialogue to reject #1. If you want to defend/explain/promote your faith, you must be ready to answer the very shocked non-LDS Christian who asks you, "You mean you really believe that one day you will become GOD???!!!" As soon as you stammer at that, or, worse yet, dismiss the question by saying, "Well...that's not doctrine..." you've lost me. At minimum, be ready to explain the doctrine of exaltation...and then distinguish between what is revealed and doctrinal, and what is speculation. I believe Paul's admonition to "study to show yourselves proved, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of God," is something we all must take to heart. Sometimes a personal concern must, by faith, be put on the back burner, but something like this, that gets so much play amongst your critics, some study and consideration seems warranted.

[Whynot]

I've done extensive study of the teachings of Jesus Christ, and this one isn't one I've seen. There is reason to believe in a 'oneness' sense when we are in Christ and He is in us, that we have certain things to experience and hope for and inherit. John 14-17 outlines much of this. We are to be like Him, but does this imply the lengths the couplet outlines?

If you can show it in the teachings, promises or prophecies of Jesus I'd like someone to point it out to me.

Thanks!

One Disciple to Another

[skippy740]

I have a slightly different view on "doing all things that I have seen the Father do".

In temples, we act as proxy for the dead. We perform a vicarious work for them - something they CANNOT do for themselves. We are their saviors in the fact that we perform the ordinances they need to accept in order to progress. (Please notice the small 's' in saviors.)

Jesus Christ performed the Atonement - an infinite atonement.

Now, shouldn't that infinite atonement extend to the worlds we may create as eternal kings and queens? I think so... but this is all speculation.

[captmoroniRM]

At minimum, be ready to explain the doctrine of exaltation...and then distinguish between what is revealed and doctrinal, and what is speculation. I believe Paul's admonition to "study to show yourselves proved, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of God," is something we all must take to heart. Sometimes a personal concern must, by faith, be put on the back burner, but something like this, that gets so much play amongst your critics, some study and consideration seems warranted.

I agree. A friend of mine had a mission companion who was brand new in the field and when asked a question, thought to be profound by starting out "well, when I become a God..." and then something about a Heavenly Mother. The investigator questioned that and so my friend explained the doctrine of exaltation and the basics about our Heavenly Mother. He was well studied in the doctrines and held to what has been revealed, avoiding deep speculative arguments. The investigator accepted their explanations and was later baptized. Doctrine and Covenants 29:7 says

And ye are called to bring to pass the gathering of mine elect; for mine elect hear my voice and harden not their hearts.

There are moments where we have to explain the doctrines and revealed truths clearly. The elect of God will hear His voice and accept even the deep doctrines early on. We have to put our personal fears aside at those times and declare the truth boldly and trust that the Spirit will testify of the truths we declare. We must do our part and treasure up the true doctrines, so we can teach them, and stay away from speculation or theory. But we must also not be afraid to declare "I don't know. That has yet to be revealed," which is something that I oft feel too few members of the Church can do. They feel they have to come up with a reasonable explanation, even if it starts becoming their own theories.

[mikbone]

I have a slightly different view on "doing all things that I have seen the Father do".

In temples, we act as proxy for the dead. We perform a vicarious work for them - something they CANNOT do for themselves. We are their saviors in the fact that we perform the ordinances they need to accept in order to progress. (Please notice the small 's' in saviors.)

Jesus Christ performed the Atonement - an infinite atonement.

Now, shouldn't that infinite atonement extend to the worlds we may create as eternal kings and queens? I think so... but this is all speculation.

Thank you for the post

I may be incorrect but your statements appear to stem from 2 different concepts.

1) Joseph Smith's discourses dealing with the Saviors on Mount Zion

January 21, 1844

May 12, 1844

2) Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Atonement of Christ.

“When the prophets speak of an infinite atonement, they mean just that. Its effects cover all men, the earth itself and all forms of life thereon, and reach out into the endless expanses of eternity. … the atonement of Christ, being literally and truly infinite, applies to an infinite number of earths.”

Does your concept fit into #4 in the original post or is it a variation?

[mikbone]

I've done extensive study of the teachings of Jesus Christ, and this one isn't one I've seen. There is reason to believe in a 'oneness' sense when we are in Christ and He is in us, that we have certain things to experience and hope for and inherit. John 14-17 outlines much of this. We are to be like Him, but does this imply the lengths the couplet outlines?

If you can show it in the teachings, promises or prophecies of Jesus I'd like someone to point it out to me.

Thanks!

One Disciple to Another

John 5:19

Matthew 5:48

Romans 8:17

Revelations 3:21

Thats a good start. If your serious in your questions, I'd be more than happy to recite a multitude more.

[Wingnut]

I agree. A friend of mine had a mission companion who was brand new in the field and when asked a question, thought to be profound by starting out "well, when I become a God..."

I once dated a guy who was known to occasionally make comments to the effect of "when I create worlds..." Once he stated that when he created worlds, it would only rain at night, so as not to ruin otherwise perfectly good days. I decided this past weekend that when I create worlds, mothers of young children will never be sick at the same time as their children.

[Maya]

Interesting discusition, something I often think and answer the anties attacs about it. There is far too many referances (in the scriptures especially the Bible) to a man becoming a god and enheriting the Father together with Jesus, in more than one ways.

Yet I am careful to emphazise the spekulative carracter of my or anyone elses toughts that go over what is written in the scriptures and to keep an open mind about this and NOT to clonclude anything final!

Like captain said this really has nothing to do with our salvation so what ever who ever thinks is not important. Stil I like many others like to speculate. It is also nice to be a step ahead in knowing what thsi all is about... we may be right we may be wrong.

There has been soem really interesting points here. I myself dont really go for Adam-God thing. Adam would become God later, like any of us, but I think God was somewhere else attending his business and giving advice to Jesus the Lord. He was a "son of God" like any of us and beeing the first he was thus considered someone beeing closest to be a God.

When I think of myself and my DH.. I am afraid we will need the whole eternity to be able to progress to beeing god, but I am sure we will be kept busy on other things, helping those who are higher in understanding and more ready.

I am also interested in the Womans role in the God! I believe the God is a union of two and all too often it is understod as mere men. One reason why this is so is the linguisticle problem of the word man/men meaning a man or a human beeing. The "patriarchal" world all too often forget that it dont always need to mean a man but a human= man or woman.

At the moment I seem to be on the stadium where it really dont matter how it is, but I stil think that we will proceed step by step in becoming alike our Heavenly parents, but we can never go past them. A try to pass them will also mean that we rebell and stop beeing gods. I believe it is so with my olderbrother Jesus too, we will never pass Him either. We are also expected to progress to be like our Hevenly parents. It will take a looooong time before any of uss are able to create worlds... there is just so much to learn yet.

An interesting thing is also those who can not proceed to goodhead. When I was listening to Bacyard professors quantum theory on his YouTube channel I got an idea ... what about id those who are to be in the darkness for all eternity... there is dark and light materia in the universe. The good attarcts the light particles adn bad the black ones. I just got an idea that maybe the hell is that you are in a way dissolved adn sent back in the darkness of the university...

It si good to remember that this thread is highly speculative even though it is basing on the scriptures.

[Jamie123]

I'm obviously not qualified to vote FOR any of the options, but I would encourage any LDS who want to engage other Christians in dialogue to reject #1. If you want to defend/explain/promote your faith, you must be ready to answer the very shocked non-LDS Christian who asks you, "You mean you really believe that one day you will become GOD???!!!" As soon as you stammer at that, or, worse yet, dismiss the question by saying, "Well...that's not doctrine..." you've lost me. At minimum, be ready to explain the doctrine of exaltation...and then distinguish between what is revealed and doctrinal, and what is speculation. I believe Paul's admonition to "study to show yourselves proved, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of God," is something we all must take to heart. Sometimes a personal concern must, by faith, be put on the back burner, but something like this, that gets so much play amongst your critics, some study and consideration seems warranted.

I agree - I've said before this is where Vort's policy of refusing to discuss "deep doctrine" with nonmembers on the grounds that they're physically incapable of understanding it falls flat on its face. [What's become of Vort by the way? I hope he's OK.] If you refuse to talk about these things someone else with a very different agenda will be happy to fill in the gaps.

[martybess]

...

Edited October 26, 2010 by martybess
double post

[martybess]

recognize God's power/love/mercy/ability to transform... to belittle God's children is to belittle God Himself.. To have hope for ourselves and what we can become, is to have faith in God and in what He can make of us.

Excellent thought! This is my view as well. Recognize God's power/love/MERCY/ for the sinner. We as mortals are proud and conger up in our minds grand allusions about ourselves. Are we going to get upon our rameumptoms and express our grandness? True it's well to know our potential but we have so much potential in love and mercy now!

After all the pains we take to be upright, He tells us that "joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, who need no repentance." (Luke 15:7.) We can become like God, one perfected precept at a time.