Will you be gods?

[Bensalem]

How do you reply to a person who asks this question of your theology?

Early Catholic thought produced the concept that "we will share in God's nature".

What does LDS scripture add to this concept?

The NT teaches that we become the body of Christ and that Christ is God.

Is this enough to justify the words of your prophet in regards to becoming gods?

David said of our Lord, "Yet you have made (man) little less than a god."

Genesis records, "Let Us make man in Our own image; in the likeness of Ourselves..."

Does LDS theology therefore fulfill God's plan from the beginning? If so, how so?

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

The best way to answer these questions is to ask some good solid biblical questions back.

For instance, ask the person this question:

According to Romans 8:17, the Apostle Paul states that ... "if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together."

What was it that Christ inherited? And, why would Christ ask the Father for those who follow, preach, and teach would be glorified just as Christ is glorified, and because Christ Glorified the Father in this world? (See John 17).

The whole idea of deification rests upon the person and nature of Christ. Ask them if they believe that God himself came down to be a man? If they said God could not, then ask them why did Christ come down? Is he not God?

If Christ took upon himself mortal flesh and bone, was obedient and subordinate to the will and commandment of the Father (which the numerous New Testament passages definitely attest too), how much more are we to follow the same pattern that Christ himself shown us to follow?

[Traveler]

How do you reply to a person who asks this question of your theology?

Early Catholic thought produced the concept that "we will share in God's nature".

What does LDS scripture add to this concept?

The NT teaches that we become the body of Christ and that Christ is God.

Is this enough to justify the words of your prophet in regards to becoming gods?

David said of our Lord, "Yet you have made (man) little less than a god."

Genesis records, "Let Us make man in Our own image; in the likeness of Ourselves..."

Does LDS theology therefore fulfill God's plan from the beginning? If so, how so?

The problem is comprehending what G-d is in the first place. The second problem is denouncing that characteristic of G-d that should not be emulated – in other words what is there about G-d that is not “good” that we (mankind) should therefore not seek after?

LDS theology and doctrine is that through our covenants (including) marriage we become apprentices of G-d or G-dliness and learn by experience to be like him.

The Traveler

[havejoy]

Chapter 82 of Psalms is interesting, especially verse 6.

[NeuroTypical]

How do you reply to a person who asks this question of your theology?

Early Catholic thought produced the concept that "we will share in God's nature".

What does LDS scripture add to this concept?

Well, first I reply that they're lumping two criticisms into one question. There's the issue of deification, and the issue of so-called 'adding to' concepts or scriptures.

1. We don't turn to early Catholic thought to produce the notion that we're children of God, we turn to scriptures for the notion.

Scriptures are pretty clear - although they're not the scriptures you're citing.

Christ will inherit all the Father hath.

We're joint heirs with Christ.

2. We're not building or adding to any earlier thought, we're reading what the scriptures say about it, and going with it. If we add anything, it's to point out that common sense dictates that children grow up to be like their father.

LM

[Bensalem]

The best way to answer these questions is to ask some good solid biblical questions back.

For instance, ask the person this question:

According to Romans 8:17, the Apostle Paul states that ... "if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together."

What was it that Christ inherited? And, why would Christ ask the Father for those who follow, preach, and teach would be glorified just as Christ is glorified, and because Christ Glorified the Father in this world? (See John 17).

The whole idea of deification rests upon the person and nature of Christ. Ask them if they believe that God himself came down to be a man? If they said God could not, then ask them why did Christ come down? Is he not God?

If Christ took upon himself mortal flesh and bone, was obedient and subordinate to the will and commandment of the Father (which the numerous New Testament passages definitely attest too), how much more are we to follow the same pattern that Christ himself shown us to follow?

It is true that the promise is that we should be glorified in Christ. Many Christians see this glory as extending to eternal life and to being resurrected with Him, but they do not take it to mean that we will be gods. They seem to have a more mystical ideal of what God is and man’s inclusion in this image is not as certain as LDS doctrine.

Muslims, of course, have a major obstacle in seeing Jesus as God because of his mortality. He could not be God in his flesh because God is immortal. John describes him as The Word made flesh and states that God is the Word. I believe this is where Jesus’ immortality rests. He spoke the Word of God, and so even in the flesh he was God.

So then is his promise to us. In the priesthood and with the gift of the Holy Ghost, as a son of God in his church, are we not also the Word?

I like to point out to doubters that being gods cannot be separated from speaking the word of God in the name of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit. I believe our godhood rests in being the word of God on earth. By speaking it we glorify our Father in heaven.

[Mute]

Here is the way I look at it.

For those of you who have children or have taken care of young ones, what would you want to do for your children? Perhaps the most common answer people give is they would want to give them everything and they would even given their own life to see them more happy than they were in their life. They would want more for them than they had them self. Their children are their most prized possession. They would do everything they could possibly do to make this possible. If a God had everything and we were his children, would he not want us to become like him? If I were a God, that's what I would want. That's just my two cents.

[Bensalem]

The problem is comprehending what G-d is in the first place. The second problem is denouncing that characteristic of G-d that should not be emulated – in other words what is there about G-d that is not “good” that we (mankind) should therefore not seek after?

LDS theology and doctrine is that through our covenants (including) marriage we become apprentices of G-d or G-dliness and learn by experience to be like him.

The Traveler

I have a very pedestrian vision of God and his kingdom. It is built along the same lines as his church on earth. The priesthood reigns, callings are extended, and we live as brothers in sisters in Israel.

I see God as the community (the Church), Christ’s shared lordship as a plurality in the priesthood, and the saints as being participants in the work of the Holy Ghost...he too being a plurality. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are a multitude. Since they are One, the promise of being any part of that multitude is the promise of being God.

[Bensalem]

Chapter 82 of Psalms is interesting, especially verse 6.

Thanks, I forgot that one: "I once said, 'You too are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you'."

[Bensalem]

Well, first I reply that they're lumping two criticisms into one question. There's the issue of deification, and the issue of so-called 'adding to' concepts or scriptures.

1. We don't turn to early Catholic thought to produce the notion that we're children of God, we turn to scriptures for the notion.

Scriptures are pretty clear - although they're not the scriptures you're citing.

Christ will inherit all the Father hath.

We're joint heirs with Christ.

2. We're not building or adding to any earlier thought, we're reading what the scriptures say about it, and going with it. If we add anything, it's to point out that common sense dictates that children grow up to be like their father.

LM

I only mentioned early Catholic thought to point out that the concept existed. I should have added that those who criticize LDS teaching on becoming gods demonstrate an ignorance of this fact.

[Bensalem]

Here is the way I look at it.

For those of you who have children or have taken care of young ones, what would you want to do for your children? Perhaps the most common answer people give is they would want to give them everything and they would even given their own life to see them more happy than they were in their life. They would want more for them than they had them self. Their children are their most prized possession. They would do everything they could possibly do to make this possible. If a God had everything and we were his children, would he not want us to become like him? If I were a God, that's what I would want. That's just my two cents.

I would pair that with the priesthood keys, which are the authority to act in God's name. Only then is Godhood complete and fulfilled according to His will.

[HEthePrimate]

Interesting question.

One thing I would make clear is that we will NEVER be on an equal standing with God. I'm thinking of the scripture in Revelation where the 24 elders cast their crowns before the throne of God--that's how I picture things being in the eternities. We may have our own domains and children, but all will still be subject the God the Father (and, I would add, God the Mother! But there I go getting all heretical! ).

I think the more important thing is to focus on becoming more like God. He is our model, and it would be good to imitate him. It seems to me that even if we never "become gods," being godlike is still a better way to live. And it's obviously impossible to become a god without becoming godlike.

We have a Heavenly Father and Mother. They are gods. If they are indeed our parents, it stands to reason that we can grow up and become more like them. And even if they were not our literal parents, they are still such wonderful beings that imitating them and becoming more like them could only bear good fruit.

HEP

[livy111us]

There was a variety of teachings in the Early Christian Fathers on Theosis. The person asking the question lumped them all into only sharing in Gods nature, when there is a definite distinction taught of actually becoming gods ourselves.

I'd recommend reading the FAIR wiki on the subject

Nature of God/Deification of man - FAIRMormon

We also have discussed this in the past, and I posted several pages of quotes from the ECF, reformers, and Popes.

[bert10]

The Natural man is made a little less than GOD. But when we put on Christ we become a Spiritual man even a NEW CREATURE!.

As for becoming Gods. We already are children of the Most High. Like seeds of a tree the pattern and likeness of our parent is already in us. We are not yet in full bloom. We do not become Gods we already are Gods...and so as Sons of GOD we inherit of GOD by promise if we fulfill the conditions. The power and the Glory can only be had by them who can handle it.

bert10

How do you reply to a person who asks this question of your theology?

Early Catholic thought produced the concept that "we will share in God's nature".

What does LDS scripture add to this concept?

The NT teaches that we become the body of Christ and that Christ is God.

Is this enough to justify the words of your prophet in regards to becoming gods?

David said of our Lord, "Yet you have made (man) little less than a god."

Genesis records, "Let Us make man in Our own image; in the likeness of Ourselves..."

Does LDS theology therefore fulfill God's plan from the beginning? If so, how so?

[Bensalem]

The Natural man is made a little less than GOD. But when we put on Christ we become a Spiritual man even a NEW CREATURE!.

As for becoming Gods. We already are children of the Most High. Like seeds of a tree the pattern and likeness of our parent is already in us. We are not yet in full bloom. We do not become Gods we already are Gods...and so as Sons of GOD we inherit of GOD by promise if we fulfill the conditions. The power and the Glory can only be had by them who can handle it.

bert10

Well then, do you believe we will establish and rule over other planets and repeat the process that was created here on earth?

[Bensalem]

Yes, it is prideful and presumptuous to say “I’m going to be a God” so you will not hear too many LDS actualy make that statement...

However…

we do have great faith in our Heavenly Father, and in His abilities to transform imperfect weaklings...

so it's not really about what we can become, it's about what God is able to create.

I don't think Joseph Smith was being prideful and presumptuous when he stated that we shall be gods. The promise comes from God. Why hide from stating the truth of it or even sharing a testimony of it? Do we glorify God with our mouths shout about the matter?

[Dravin]

I don't think Joseph Smith was being prideful and presumptuous when he stated that we shall be gods. The promise comes from God. Why hide from stating the truth of it or even sharing a testimony of it? Do we glorify God with our mouths shout about the matter?

Because when proselyting starting with similarities tends to be more effective. Also, simply stated it tends to be misinterpreted by those hearing it. Declare you shall be a God and people don't hear faith in the promise to share in all that the Father has and to be joint heirs with Christ but rather the words of Isaiah 14:13-14. Something can be technically true but if not carefully stated can lead to erroneous interpretation.

Edited November 28, 2010 by Dravin

[Last_Daze]

Also, simply stated it tends to be misinterpreted by those hearing it. Declare you shall be a God and people don't hear faith in the promise to share in all that the Father has and to be joint heirs with Christ but rather the words of Isaiah 14:13-14.

Indeed.

For whatever reason, the idea of theosis and joint-heirship with Christ, so common throughout early Christian thought and still prevalent in Eastern Orthodox and Catholic thought, has for whatever reason fallen out of vogue with the Protestant world. The layperson may be unaware of it; the theologian may be vaguely aware of it, whether he subscribes to it or not. To speak of it so bluntly then creates serious misunderstandings, made all the more serious by the current state of the discussion, in which evangelical protestants are often eager to tell the LDS Church what it teaches and believes, rather than listening to a serious explanation. Better, perhaps, to let the matter lie, and focus on things which might be less controversial in an ecumenical setting.

[Traveler]

Well then, do you believe we will establish and rule over other planets and repeat the process that was created here on earth?

One note – this is not doctrine but speculation. I made a statement before that it is important to understand G-d. That G-d was G-d before the creation spoken of in the beginning in Genesis. G-d does not need planets to rule over before he can be G-d and neither will we.

The Traveler

[Whynot]

The best way to answer these questions is to ask some good solid biblical questions back.

For instance, ask the person this question:

According to Romans 8:17, the Apostle Paul states that ... "if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together."

What was it that Christ inherited? And, why would Christ ask the Father for those who follow, preach, and teach would be glorified just as Christ is glorified, and because Christ Glorified the Father in this world? (See John 17).

The whole idea of deification rests upon the person and nature of Christ. Ask them if they believe that God himself came down to be a man? If they said God could not, then ask them why did Christ come down? Is he not God?

If Christ took upon himself mortal flesh and bone, was obedient and subordinate to the will and commandment of the Father (which the numerous New Testament passages definitely attest too), how much more are we to follow the same pattern that Christ himself shown us to follow?

And then there is also the question posed by Jesus on the scripture that calls men gods and He asked them what it meant and they went away pretty much speechless.

[Bensalem]

Because when proselyting starting with similarities tends to be more effective. Also, simply stated it tends to be misinterpreted by those hearing it. Declare you shall be a God and people don't hear faith in the promise to share in all that the Father has and to be joint heirs with Christ but rather the words of Isaiah 14:13-14. Something can be technically true but if not carefully stated can lead to erroneous interpretation.

Yet some have claimed the LDS are holding back and they rebel against the larger picture after being "effectively" converted. Shouldn’t the saints be as effective in rebuttal to those who would use the words of Isaiah chapter 14 against the theology of eternal progression by simply pointing out that those words (verses 5-21) are to be applied to the king of Babylon, the tyrants of this world, and not to those who hold the priesthood of Christ in redemption of the truth.

[Bensalem]

Indeed.

For whatever reason, the idea of theosis and joint-heirship with Christ, so common throughout early Christian thought and still prevalent in Eastern Orthodox and Catholic thought, has for whatever reason fallen out of vogue with the Protestant world. The layperson may be unaware of it; the theologian may be vaguely aware of it, whether he subscribes to it or not. To speak of it so bluntly then creates serious misunderstandings, made all the more serious by the current state of the discussion, in which evangelical protestants are often eager to tell the LDS Church what it teaches and believes, rather than listening to a serious explanation. Better, perhaps, to let the matter lie, and focus on things which might be less controversial in an ecumenical setting.

When I read scripture I register bluntness on the lips of the prophets of Israel. Joseph Smith was blunt, he didn’t hold any punches. Paul declared himself shameless and was fearless in proclaiming the words of the gospel.

Rejection is part of the program, silence is not. Protestants are happy to be Christ’s flock because they have not been taught to be his shepherds. Their priests have shepherded them into a corral with a gate closed onto living revelation. Meanwhile, the saints in the church have the word of God in the gift of the Holy Ghost and their priests have the authority of the apostles of old to proclaim his word.

Controversies are the meat of the gospel served up on platters of truth at the wedding feast of the Lamb. I think when God’s children come onto the scene they should be told what He is serving. Then if they don’t wish to partake, it will be their loss and not the saint’s fault in silence. There remains plenty of bread and wine at His supper for the palettes of the cautious.

[NeuroTypical]

Controversies are the meat of the gospel served up on platters of truth at the wedding feast of the Lamb. I think when God’s children come onto the scene they should be told what He is serving. Then if they don’t wish to partake, it will be their loss and not the saint’s fault in silence. There remains plenty of bread and wine at His supper for the palettes of the cautious.

Well, I'm not on board with much of what you're saying there, but I am appreciating the way you're saying it.

Would you say that yes, the church urges investigators to attend Gospel Principles class, or no we don't? If we do, then is there not a chapter in that manual on Exhaltation? Does that chapter not make statements like this?

Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation.

Blessings of Exaltation

...

These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

...

2. They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23).

...

3. They will be united eternally with their righteous family members and will be able to have eternal increase.

...

5. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19–20).

I've taught this lesson to half a dozen investigators over the years. I've been in umpteen conversations with nonmembers over the years about the subject. No, I don't think we hide what's on the menu. Maybe most of us don't proclaim it as loudly or directly as you'd prefer, but I don't buy the old anti-mormon criticism that we sucker people into getting baptized and then they're stuck with the rest of the story after it's too late.

LM

Edited November 28, 2010 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Soulsearcher]

Well, I'm not on board with much of what you're saying there, but I am appreciating the way you're saying it.

Would you say that yes, the church urges investigators to attend Gospel Principles class, or no we don't? If we do, then is there not a chapter in that manual on Exhaltation? Does that chapter not make statements like this?

I've taught this lesson to half a dozen investigators over the years. I've been in umpteen conversations with nonmembers over the years about the subject. No, I don't think we hide what's on the menu. Maybe most of us don't proclaim it as loudly or directly as you'd prefer, but I don't buy the old anti-mormon criticism that we sucker people into getting baptized and then they're stuck with the rest of the story after it's too late.

LM

I have to agree and disagree with what LM's saying to a degree. Yes investigators are invited to go to gospel principals, however the missionaries start talking about baptism pretty early on in most cases and there is a strong chance an investigator might only have a few gospel principal classes under their belt and the chances are slim they might reach the lesson on exaltation. Even knowing a bit about it before i took the lessons, every set of missionaries i talked to kinda avoided a direct question about the "we will be gods" question and a few used the milk before meat idea of "get baptized first and learn over time" kinda lines. I've talked to enough people to know this isn't always done, but that it's common as well.

[Whynot]

Taking the commandments from the lesson on the gospel of eternal progression, it may be that LDS need to come to grips with the rest of the commandments given by Jesus Christ. To have the bulk of the teachings on the gospel as it relates to progression re enforces the view of non LDS that you are not teaching what Jesus or the apostles and prophets taught at the beginning. As I commented on an earlier post, it's good to see LDS using the Bible verses that support what is the truth.

What I'd like to know is how you deal with the testimony of John the Baptist about Jesus, and how this relates to your belief as outlined in the Gospel Principles Manual.

John 3:27 -36, particularly 31-36;

"He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all. And what He has seen and heard, that He testifies; and no one receives His testimony. He who has received His testimony has certified that God is true. For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure. The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

Isn't John saying that Jesus alone is from above and that all of us are not? What Scriptures do you see saying otherwise?

Thanks!