Will you be gods?

[Whynot]

Yes,"And to him that is victorious, to him will I give to sit with me on my throne, even as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on His throne."

And we see in several places that victorious is found to be those who have the testimony of Jesus and keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus Christ.

That's the highest calling there can be - to follow Him in whatsoever He told us, and tells us to this very day in His words of eternal life.

However, we also see in Revelation that there is only one God and none other is to be worshiped. So to rule with the Lord on His throne must in some way be different that being what some think LDS teach. I've met LDS who believe they will also be a God as the Father is, and I've met LDS that absolutely don't believe that, which makes me wonder why the LDS Church doesn't distance itself from things that others are offended by in light of many other Scriptures.

How can we sit with Him on His throne unless we are faithful in all things Jesus said?

[Avrham]

"will you be Gods" well me personally I would rather be a servant and if God has that atribute then it something I will try to emulate,: your question reminds me of a favourite song/lyrics of mine

"there are more questions than answers the more I find out the less I know":)

[Tantalus]

Can all colour skinned people become Gods? Do any of them have extra requirements?

What do you do after you have become a God and what abilities will you possess?

Edit: Thought of another question.

Do LDS believe they will be equal to Elohim or Christ after death? If not whats the difference?

Edited December 23, 2010 by Tantalus

[bytor2112]

Yes,"And to him that is victorious, to him will I give to sit with me on my throne, even as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on His throne."

And we see in several places that victorious is found to be those who have the testimony of Jesus and keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus Christ.

That's the highest calling there can be - to follow Him in whatsoever He told us, and tells us to this very day in His words of eternal life.

However, we also see in Revelation that there is only one God and none other is to be worshiped. So to rule with the Lord on His throne must in some way be different that being what some think LDS teach. I've met LDS who believe they will also be a God as the Father is, and I've met LDS that absolutely don't believe that, which makes me wonder why the LDS Church doesn't distance itself from things that others are offended by in light of many other Scriptures.

How can we sit with Him on His throne unless we are faithful in all things Jesus said?

OR....it could be that you really don't understand what we teach. We believe we can become like HIM....not supplant HIM. Our purpose is an Eternal one......

[Just_A_Guy]

Can all colour skinned people become Gods?

Yes.

Do any of them have extra requirements?

No.

What do you do after you have become a God and what abilities will you possess?

Details are lacking. We are told that God's work and glory is "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man", and godhood presumably entails joining God the Father in this work.

Do LDS believe they will be equal to Elohim or Christ after death? If not whats the difference?

No. Just as I'll never have as much experience or wisdom as my own parents (though I can certainly approach a level where they were, many years ago), we will never be fully equal to Elohim. He will always be our Father; and Jehovah will always be our elder Brother.

[Tantalus]

Yes.

No.

Details are lacking. We are told that God's work and glory is "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man", and godhood presumably entails joining God the Father in this work.

No. Just as I'll never have as much experience or wisdom as my own parents (though I can certainly approach a level where they were, many years ago), we will never be fully equal to Elohim. He will always be our Father; and Jehovah will always be our elder Brother.

Thanks for the precise responses.

[Whynot]

OR....it could be that you really don't understand what we teach. We believe we can become like HIM....not supplant HIM. Our purpose is an Eternal one......

This is what my understanding is as well, but I have met some LDS who take the matter to the point to say that 'if God does not make them a God as He is that there are going to be a lot of people die', which I personally found somewhat alarming and fanatical.

I know enough not to accuse all LDS of this belief because it was expressed by one man, but it does cause me to wonder if the LDS Church needs to clarify the belief as you stated above.

Becoming 'like' Him was taught by the Lord as very specific attitudes towards those who accuse us or such things and He calls us to do good, continue in love towards those who don't love us, and to pray for our enemies - things such as this - that we are called to higher levels of faith, life, love and grace towards others than the old 'tooth for a tooth' attitude. Jesus calls us to spiritual maturity to be like the Father in that way. I don't think He ever indicated otherwise, except about sitting with Him on His throne, which doesn't seem to indicate creation of our own worlds that we can be 'Gods' over.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Whynot
added 'like' definition

[Traveler]

All of the problems generated concerning the idea that we can become G-ds surround various interpretations and understandings of G-d and the current fallen state of man. For example: the scriptures are very clear – prior to the fall of man all references to G-d are plural and only after the fall of man do the references made singular. Without question fallen man has only one mediator G-d through which all things divine can be realized. For fallen man there is only one G-d.

The other interesting aspect is the nature of G-d or what defines G-d. I always wonder what about G-d and his nature (what defines G-d as G-d) would be so exclusive to G-d that G-d would not want any other being to emulate or that would be evil? If G-d is good then should he not appreciate that same good in others? And if it is goodness that defines G-d so that he is G-d then such goodness in others would also qualify them as G-ds as well?

The Traveler

[Bensalem]

Bensalem, I agree you are not doing a cage match brawl. I'll defend you on that issue.

That said, I would also suggest that none of us is as knowledgeable as we think we are. Some people defend territory only to find out that they are standing on the wrong spot. The defense isn't the problem. It is the foundation upon which we build our defense.

The gospel of Christ is a strong foundation. Sadly, all of us have the tendency to mix other things into the cement that make that foundation. We have pet gospel hobbies, or personal interpretations/misinterpretations that we hang onto as if life depended upon it.

We all need to learn to continually separate the doctrine from the dribble, or the true principles from the speculation and personal views.

On a LDS philosophy group I'm in, we are having a discussion with a young college student about God and the Church. He is wanting us to show him why he should continue believing in God and the gospel. We are glad to do so. However, he has placed us in a difficult situation. He will only accept his own interpretation of the gospel as the one we must defend, yet it is one we do not accept. For example, Jesus is cruel and demanding in calling all to repent or suffer even as he has; suggesting an uncaring and unloving God. None of the rest of us interpret D&C 19 in that fashion and have told him so, yet he rejects our statements, because we will not defend his interpretation of the scriptures.

We all must be flexible enough to see that the gospel is not for personal interpretation, at least not in an official way. Each of us can interpret scripture as we see fit, but we need to ensure that what we see as truth may not be the same as what the official Church view is, or that of another member. And this isn't just on a regular member level, either. Ezra Taft Benson and Hugh B. Brown used to disagree a lot concerning politics. Joseph F. Smith and James Talmage disagreed on evolution, science, etc.

We all need to take a step back and review what we think we know, because it may surprise us to realize that we know less than we really do. We also need to look at whether what we believe agrees with the common view, and if not, why? And if so, why?

As I said, I am still on the milk. As far as I can tell, there is no real "meat" in the gospel, just speculations. I can speculate with the best of them, but I diligently work hard to ensure I do not mistaken my speculations with the true milk of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Otherwise, my foundation ends up being a mixture of cement and clay (or iron and clay, if you are into Daniel's interpretations), just awaiting to be knocked down by the true rock.

I believe the word of God is sufficient to sustain the doctrine in the LDS church that we can be like Him. And since He is God, we too shall be gods.

If that is not the meat of the gospel, I don't know what is.

[Whynot]

All of the problems generated concerning the idea that we can become G-ds surround various interpretations and understandings of G-d and the current fallen state of man. For example: the scriptures are very clear – prior to the fall of man all references to G-d are plural and only after the fall of man do the references made singular. Without question fallen man has only one mediator G-d through which all things divine can be realized. For fallen man there is only one G-d.

The other interesting aspect is the nature of G-d or what defines G-d. I always wonder what about G-d and his nature (what defines G-d as G-d) would be so exclusive to G-d that G-d would not want any other being to emulate or that would be evil? If G-d is good then should he not appreciate that same good in others? And if it is goodness that defines G-d so that he is G-d then such goodness in others would also qualify them as G-ds as well?

The Traveler

The new AENT (Aramaic English New Testament) is really a blessing as a double check for the Scriptures handed down through Jerome and the RCC Greek texts, as the Lord and His disciples (apostles) spoke Aramaic, and a more direct translation into English is more faithful to what was actually said. As the saying goes, 'as much as it has been translated correctly', is fairly clear with the AENT.

The AENT says that Jesus gives authority to those who believe in Him and abide in His word to become sons of God. Jesus also said that unless we take up our own staff of authority and leadership and follow Him that we are not worthy of Him. Now does that sound familiar?

As the Lord said, when we see Him (Jesus) we have seen the Father, as Jesus is the human representation/likeness of God - but the matter is known by the spirit, because God is Spirit and the source of all that has been created, and Revelation also re tells that only God is to be worshiped, even by the other gods (el's).

The AENT has a number of names that God and Jesus are called, as well as the angels are more clearly identified as 'messengers' of God.

John 1:1-5; In the beginning was the Miltha. And that Miltha was with Elohim. And Elohim was that Miltha. This was with Elohim in the beginning. Everything existed through His hands, and without Him, not even one thing existed of the things which have existed. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.And that light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it."

another interesting quote is Matt. 5:33; Again you have heard that it has been said to those before that you should not lie in your oath. But complete your oath to Master YHWH."

Another place the Holy Spirit is spoken of as the Redeemer...

Revelation 1:8,9 says:

"I am Alp, also Taw," says the Master YHWH, Elohim: who is, and was, and is to come, the omnipotent." I Yochanan, your brother and partaker with you in the affliction and suffering that are in Y'shua the Mashiyach, was in the island called Patmos because of the Word of Elohim and because of the testimony of Y'shua the Mashiyach. I was in the Spirit on the day of our Master YHWH; and I heard behind me a great voice; as of a shofar, which said;...."

I don't think the new translation is friendly to the Trinity doctrine.

so much to check out.... it was much simpler from the Greek:-), but not as good:-)

Edited January 17, 2011 by Whynot
mis type of AENT