Exaltation

[jonathan909817]

I just don't get it. I don't get how heavenly father is a God who was once a man, who was then exalted, because that means that there must be an endless line of the same thing. Which also raises this question in my mind- Why worship this God? Why not the "original". I've asked others but nobody can give me a straight answer. This is the only things holding me back because i just don't know what to think about it

[bytor2112]

They don't give you a straight answer because we don't really know the answer. Was God once a man....yes. Jehovah took on a fleshly tabernacle as a man and worked out his salvation. Anything else is speculation and mostly because of the King Follett discourse...a talk given by Joseph Smith at King Follette's funeral.

Relax....it's not essential to your salvation. Really, if it was, the Lord would reveal it.

[NeuroTypical]

You think you got it hard, try asking the exact opposite question. Why not worship this God? What is it about being the 'original' that has a higher claim on worship than the one we're actually involved with?

You give me a strait answer to my question, and I'll give you one to yours.

[jonathan909817]

Okay how about this then- Why not worship any previous God's as well as our own? Since you say this one should be worshiped, then why not the others?

[Just_A_Guy]

Does a child obey his grandfather in the same way that he obeys his father?

[bytebear]

We worship God the Father because he is the creator/organizer of our spirits. No other heavenly being (exalted or not) has such a distinction. We worship Jesus Christ because he is the only being in all of eternity who sacrificed himself to atone for our sins. Also, even if we inherit the ability to do as God the Father has done, we will never be saviors nor take upon ourselves the sins of another. The closest we can do is perform saving ordinances on their behalf.

Also, a hard concept to understand is that there is no beginning. There is no "first god" and there will be no "last god." There is no end to matter, as the hymn goes.

I also personally believe that although there are possibly infinite beings who are exalted, they are all one with god, and therefore there is only One God. And although we may be one with God, and become as God, there will still always be One God.

[bert10]

One of the Reasons I can think of...it is because...This person is Literally OUR FATHER in heaven. When we get back there...we will be re-given knowledge that was removed from us for coming on the earth. Also we are not divided like we are here on the earth.

Another reason is that ......Oneness means Oneness.

Socially on the earth...it is the responsibility of the FATHER to see for the welfare of His Children. And so it is in heaven.

We are given here on the earth at this time to worship no one else except the Father and to honor no one else as the Mediator except Jesus. You can be sure that after the plan of salvation is over...there will me much more to come for us.

bert10

I just don't get it. I don't get how heavenly father is a God who was once a man, who was then exalted, because that means that there must be an endless line of the same thing. Which also raises this question in my mind- Why worship this God? Why not the "original". I've asked others but nobody can give me a straight answer. This is the only things holding me back because i just don't know what to think about it

[bert10]

GOD Is also a TITLE and a OFFICE. And all before us who have inherited the powers of Heaven are GODS.

However, we are getting way ahead of ourselves here.

The reason that I have given in the other post...is that we are commanded at this time to Worship none other than our Father in heaven and to not honor anyone else as the Mediator except Jesus.

In this we must first walk in faith and then we may ask and be answered by God.

bert10

Okay how about this then- Why not worship any previous God's as well as our own? Since you say this one should be worshiped, then why not the others?

[UtahJakey]

Your question reminds me of this. From Stephen Hawking's 1988 book A Brief History of Time:

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever", said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

It's also very similar to Aristotle's unmoved mover concept.

Jakey

[Traveler]

Okay how about this then- Why not worship any previous God's as well as our own? Since you say this one should be worshiped, then why not the others?

The example we have of G-d and for that manner all G-ds and every G-d; is the L-rd and G-d Jesus Christ. Because of the fall Jesus is the only Mediator with all things G-dly.

One thing we learn from Christ is the oneness in G-d and all things like unto him or heirs of divine kingdoms. The oneness of Jesus and the Father being the best possible example we have.

Thus it is that by worshiping (including by emulation) of Jesus Christ and the Father we worship and honor all things G-dly. Jesus said that to know him is to know the Father. Thus it is that to best honor any creator and all creators is to honor and worship your creator.

The Traveler

[rameumptom]

The concept of God being man comes from only two sermons of Joseph Smith. It is not a core doctrine of the Church, and is not a requirement of faith in order to be a faithful LDS member. It is not well defined nor understood.

We do know that Jesus came to earth and was a mortal. Some suppose that God the Father did the same thing: God as man.

[Backroads]

The concept of God being man comes from only two sermons of Joseph Smith. It is not a core doctrine of the Church, and is not a requirement of faith in order to be a faithful LDS member. It is not well defined nor understood.

We do know that Jesus came to earth and was a mortal. Some suppose that God the Father did the same thing: God as man.

This is true, thanks for bringing this up!

Frankly, I quite like the idea of God once as man and one day achieving Godhood. Then again, that godhood might not mean creating anything but simply being in equality with God. Then again, it could mean something else. Yes, a lovely idea that does have a few prophets and apostles referencing it, but technically not hardcore doctrine. (though I personally hope it's true!)

Back to the OP...

Why I don't worship what other gods might be out there? They didn't take my intelligence from wherever in the universe and create me. I doubt they care one way or the other about me. They do not observe my life and listen to my prayers.

To me, I think it would be futile to. What would I expect them to do?

[UtahJakey]

The concept of God being man comes from only two sermons of Joseph Smith. It is not a core doctrine of the Church, and is not a requirement of faith in order to be a faithful LDS member. It is not well defined nor understood.

We do know that Jesus came to earth and was a mortal. Some suppose that God the Father did the same thing: God as man.

Not just Joseph Smith. Also Brigham Young, Heber J Grant, Joseph F. Smith and just about any priesthood or student manual actively published by the church. The current first presidency reviews all correlated material in the manuals and magazines. It's not just 2 comments from Joseph.

[Backroads]

Not just Joseph Smith. Also Brigham Young, Heber J Grant, Joseph F. Smith and just about any priesthood or student manual actively published by the church. The current first presidency reviews all correlated material in the manuals and magazines. It's not just 2 comments from Joseph.

Even so, it's not hardcore doctrine. The amount of actual LDS doctrine is quite small. This isn't one of it. You might have commentaries and musings on it, which is fine, and that stuff gets published, but that doesn't make it doctrine.

[Jbdf]

You think you got it hard, try asking the exact opposite question. Why not worship this God? What is it about being the 'original' that has a higher claim on worship than the one we're actually involved with?

You give me a strait answer to my question, and I'll give you one to yours.

In fairness to Jonathan, it seems to me as though an argument could maybe be made for the position implied by his question: Let us say that 'worship' is defined as the proper response to encountering the ultimate, such that it would be improper to worship any lesser entity and that it would be improper to withhold it from an ultimate entity. Then if our Heavenly Father attained exaltation and presumably had a deity before him, this deity is still worshipped by the Father (for what is ultimate cannot cease to be ultimate). But if our Heavenly Father recognizes this higher deity as ultimate, then our Heavenly Father cannot be ultimate and therefore is not worthy of worship. Or, perhaps there is a maximal limit to progression such that our Heavenly Father and his Heavenly Father are both equally ultimate now (let us say that such is a possibility). Indeed, in such a scenario we might speculate that there could be a limitless number of such entities. In this case, there would be a binding obligation for us to render discrete worship to each of them. What would not seem to be possible - on this understanding of worship - would be for us to have only an obligation to worship one such entity who himself has similar obligations with respect to a yet higher entity. The only way I can personally see to evade this argument is to accept a definition of 'worship' whereby God is not worthy of worship simply for being who he is, but rather only because of what he does for us.

[rameumptom]

Not just Joseph Smith. Also Brigham Young, Heber J Grant, Joseph F. Smith and just about any priesthood or student manual actively published by the church. The current first presidency reviews all correlated material in the manuals and magazines. It's not just 2 comments from Joseph.

Many spoke on it, yes. But they did not add any revelatory info on it that has found its way into our modern manuals, etc. They were speculating on what Joseph said, just as many do today. Note will you not find the King Follett Sermon in our D&C, and that is for the same reason: it isn't defined well enough.

Brigham Young taught many things. Today we accept much of it, but there are things we also reject. As a Church, we reject Adam-God theory, God's progression includes always learning new things, polygamy required for exaltation, etc.

Just a decade or so ago, in a television interview, Pres Hinckley was asked about this concept. He basically said, "yes, things have been taught on it in the past, but there is not enough information to really know what all that was taught." I tend to go with what Pres Hinckley said, as it is the most current statement by a prophet. There is what Joseph Smith said, and it was all written by a few different people, each version being somewhat different. One version we use that Joseph F. Smith included in the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and so that is the one most are used to. Yet, there are other versions that may be just as accurate or more accurate. We just don't know.

[rameumptom]

One of the Reasons I can think of...it is because...This person is Literally OUR FATHER in heaven. When we get back there...we will be re-given knowledge that was removed from us for coming on the earth. Also we are not divided like we are here on the earth.

Another reason is that ......Oneness means Oneness.

Socially on the earth...it is the responsibility of the FATHER to see for the welfare of His Children. And so it is in heaven.

We are given here on the earth at this time to worship no one else except the Father and to honor no one else as the Mediator except Jesus. You can be sure that after the plan of salvation is over...there will me much more to come for us.

bert10

D&C 130 teaches that when we return to the Celestial Kingdom, we will receive a white stone/Urim and Thummim that will teach us the "higher things of the kingdom." And the lower things will be taught by peering into the celestialized earth. So, I'm not certain we are "re-given" knowledge, or whether it is something we must relearn entirely. The scriptures are not specific on it. Nor do the scriptures tell us how much we knew as spirit children - it is all speculation. We could have been as ignorant of most things as we are now!

As for no divisions in heaven. Yes, there are divisions. We had a war in heaven over divisions and choices. There will be/are three levels of heaven, and divisions within the Celestial Kingdom itself. And I am certain that some of our future spirit children will also rebel and attempt to overthrow heaven. It isn't as simplistic as we believe.

Aristotle taught that God is the Unmoved Mover. Well, LDS teachings show just the opposite. He is the Most Moved Mover. He is not a completely blissful God, as he weeps when bad things occur on earth (weeping because of the destruction of the Flood, etc). One cannot be fully blissful and compassionate at the same time. He IS maximally joyful - as joyful as one can be, while still being able to cry, be angry, sad, etc. It is a major part of what being God is all about. Christ's atonement would have been an empty one, had he not cared enough to accomplish his sacrifice and suffering. And so it is with Heavenly Father.

[UtahJakey]

Many spoke on it, yes. But they did not add any revelatory info on it that has found its way into our modern manuals, etc. They were speculating on what Joseph said, just as many do today. Note will you not find the King Follett Sermon in our D&C, and that is for the same reason: it isn't defined well enough.

Brigham Young taught many things. Today we accept much of it, but there are things we also reject. As a Church, we reject Adam-God theory, God's progression includes always learning new things, polygamy required for exaltation, etc.

Just a decade or so ago, in a television interview, Pres Hinckley was asked about this concept. He basically said, "yes, things have been taught on it in the past, but there is not enough information to really know what all that was taught." I tend to go with what Pres Hinckley said, as it is the most current statement by a prophet. There is what Joseph Smith said, and it was all written by a few different people, each version being somewhat different. One version we use that Joseph F. Smith included in the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and so that is the one most are used to. Yet, there are other versions that may be just as accurate or more accurate. We just don't know.

So in the current Gospel Principles Manual there is Chapter 47 on exaltation. It that chapter it says "God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did" and people who receive exaltation "will become gods" Gospel Principles

Yet in your opinion this is ambiguous doctrine. If is wasn't supposed to be clear wouldn't they say so in the manual rather than explicitly teaching it's true?

Edited December 16, 2010 by UtahJakey

[Backroads]

So in the current Gospel Principles Manual there is Chapter 47 on exaltation. It that chapter it says "God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did" and people who receive exaltation "will become gods" Gospel Principles

Yet in your opinion this is ambiguous doctrine. If is wasn't supposed to be clear wouldn't they say so in the manual rather than explicitly teaching it's true?

Phaedrus

I don't know if I consider that "explicit", at least on the "become gods" part. I believe we will be exalted. Does "become gods" mean we will be creating our own worlds? I don't recall seeing that in any gospel manual, those please correct me if I'm wrong.

[UtahJakey]

I don't know if I consider that "explicit", at least on the "become gods" part. I believe we will be exalted. Does "become gods" mean we will be creating our own worlds? I don't recall seeing that in any gospel manual, those please correct me if I'm wrong.

Here is a quote directly from the manual.

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, "All things are theirs" (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76).

2. They will become gods.

3. They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family.

4. They will receive a fulness of joy.

5. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have--all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge. President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: "The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to his commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them" (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:36).

I don't understand how you say the teaching isn't explicit especially with the "becoming gods" part. It says you will become gods and you will have everything that Heavenly Father and Jesus have including their power, glory, dominion, and knowledge.

[Backroads]

Here is a quote directly from the manual.

I don't understand how you say the teaching isn't explicit especially with the "becoming gods" part. It says you will become gods and you will have everything that Heavenly Father and Jesus have including their power, glory, dominion, and knowledge.

Thanks for the reference.

I guess that my grain of salt with church doctrine is big enough that I will only accept as core doctrine what has been defined as a prophetic revelation, not a prophet musing and coming up with ideas based on other comments. Not saying it's not true, I'm just saying the Gospel Doctrine book is not scripture and neither is everything a prophet says.

[NeuroTypical]

There are two different notions being discussed here.

1- deification - we are literal offspring of a divine God - we are of the same race as God. Kids grow up to be what their parents are.

2- God had a dad, and onward throughought time.

The church is pretty clear on standing behind #1. Yes, we take what the Bible says about being children of God, and joint-heirs with Christ who will inherit all the Father hath, literally. We stand by it as truth. As for #2, well, we're much more vague on the details. We don't stand behind the notion at all.

Interview with President Hinckley, Time Magazine, Aug 4, 1997:

Reporter: Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

Hinckley: I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."

LM

[Dravin]

Not saying it's not true, I'm just saying the Gospel Doctrine book is not scripture and neither is everything a prophet says.

Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

I suppose it doesn't say "become" but I'd say "then shall they be" is close enough.

I do note that it doesn't say anything about creating our own worlds or anything like that so I have no problem being skeptical about what exactly to "become" a god exactly means. It isn't entirely clear from the scripture what exactly having all power entails, or being above all and the like.

P.S. It is possible that I'm missing something jumping into the thread at this juncture and the sub-conversation isn't whether it is a doctrine that we can become Gods.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Dravin

[bert10]

The promises are for now and here on the earth for them who overcome the world. Seeing the promises afar off is a fault. Faith is for now and we must live in the now not for the future. Because the power of GOD is effective in the present in the now.

Elijah did it, Melchisedek did it, the inhabitants of Zion and of Salem did it. Why did Abraham and the Patriarchs who were full of faith did not receive the promises of Eternal life in the Flesh...the answer is given in Hebrews 11 which is the chapter on faith itself and how it works.

Seeing the promises afar off.

Hebrews 11:13 - These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of

[them], and embraced [them], and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

1. These all died in the faith...this means Abraham, and all those who were righteous like Abraham that died in the faith.

2. Not having received the promises The promises of eternal life in the flesh...remember it is written that Abraham was seeking for a HEAVENLY COUNTRY...and if Abraham and the Patriarchs were mindful of...they might have had opportunity to return to it... He was looking for a CITY WHOSE MAKER AND Builder is GOD. (ZION). One of the reasons why Abraham went to see Melchizedek. For Salem had not yet been translated into heaven.

3. but having seen them afar off, Putting time stamps and conditions on our faith. It is written it shall be done to every man according to his faith. Abraham and the Patriarchs who were full of faith died in the faith because they saw the promises afar off. Had they chose to claim those promises they would have received them at the hands of Christ. And truly had they being mindful of that country they might have had opportunity to have returned. (exception....They who it is required to have their blood shed for a testimony to their generation...would have to die.)

Hebrews 11:15 - And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.

Hebrews 11:16 - But now they desire a better [country], that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

Hebrews 11:10 - For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

This is what I know...I share it as info. What people do that is their affair. People can either choose to build on it or to destroy.

bert10

D&C 130 teaches that when we return to the Celestial Kingdom, we will receive a white stone/Urim and Thummim that will teach us the "higher things of the kingdom." And the lower things will be taught by peering into the celestialized earth. So, I'm not certain we are "re-given" knowledge, or whether it is something we must relearn entirely. The scriptures are not specific on it. Nor do the scriptures tell us how much we knew as spirit children - it is all speculation. We could have been as ignorant of most things as we are now!

As for no divisions in heaven. Yes, there are divisions. We had a war in heaven over divisions and choices. There will be/are three levels of heaven, and divisions within the Celestial Kingdom itself. And I am certain that some of our future spirit children will also rebel and attempt to overthrow heaven. It isn't as simplistic as we believe.

Aristotle taught that God is the Unmoved Mover. Well, LDS teachings show just the opposite. He is the Most Moved Mover. He is not a completely blissful God, as he weeps when bad things occur on earth (weeping because of the destruction of the Flood, etc). One cannot be fully blissful and compassionate at the same time. He IS maximally joyful - as joyful as one can be, while still being able to cry, be angry, sad, etc. It is a major part of what being God is all about. Christ's atonement would have been an empty one, had he not cared enough to accomplish his sacrifice and suffering. And so it is with Heavenly Father.

[Justice]

Which also raises this question in my mind- Why worship this God? Why not the "original".

In the scenario you present, there is no original. It's boggling for our brains to wrap around, but it would mean this way of life (exalting offspring) has existed forever. Therefore: no original; no beginning. The only beginnings are at the start of each cycle of life, or each eternal round.

And, in my view, then, the reason we worship our Father is simple and logical. He is OUR Father; He provided for our exaltation.