Time Magazine Article

[Dr T]

Hello Ray,

You said:

And btw, I believe the "worship" I will get then will be an improvement to the "worship" I get now, as my children "honor" me as their Father.

Do you see this as "taking over" the worship of God the Father? After all, others will be worshiping you not Him.

Just trying to understand,

Dr. T

[Ray]

No, because, as I was trying to tell you in another post, to “worship” someone means that you are trying to become “like” them, or that you are making someone a ”role model” in your life, so if and when I become “one” with my Father in heaven my children “worshipping” me would also be “worshipping” Him.

And btw, our Father in heaven is also not “jealous” of His son Jesus and our worship of Him either.

And for some thoughts which might help you to better understand this issue, I suggest that you think about the order our Father in heaven has placed in our family structures here on this Earth, with our immediate role model intended (and commanded) to be our immediate Father, even though he has a Father too.

And btw, I am also looking forward to getting to know my Grand Father, and His Father, and His Father, and His Father, etc, back to infinity and beyond, while still recognizing the “role” of my Father.

[Dr T]

Hello Ray,

You said,

No, because, as I was trying to tell you in another post, to “worship” someone means that you are trying to become “like” them, or that you are making someone a ”role model” in your life ...

Thanks for your take on that.

Dr. T

[Ray]

You're welcome. :)

And btw, if you ever want to know the truth for yourself, all you have to do is ask Him.

[Dr T]

Hi Ray,

You have said that a number of times. That is a great topic to explore. We'll have to discuss that issue on another thread.

Thanks

[prisonchaplain]

And btw, our Father in heaven is also not “jealous” of His son Jesus and our worship of Him either.

Since we're all Trinitarians here, I'm not sure this is an apt solution to the question. The Father is not jealous of his Son because they are truly one. Three persons--one God. Whether our souls had a premortal existence or not, we are not one with the Father in the same way Jesus is, are we? If so, we'd have an odd mix of polyunitarianism and self-worship.

[Ray]

Hi Ray,

You have said that a number of times. That is a great topic to explore. We'll have to discuss that issue on another thread.

Thanks

...or you could do some more studying on the topic of Faith... since many prophets have talked about this before.

And btw, the idea of trying to convince someone that they should talk to God to be able to know the truth seems to be in conflict with the message of this topic. :)

<div class='quotemain'>

And btw, our Father in heaven is also not “jealous” of His son Jesus and our worship of Him either.

Since we're all Trinitarians here, I'm not sure this is an apt solution to the question. The Father is not jealous of his Son because they are truly one. Three persons--one God. Whether our souls had a premortal existence or not, we are not one with the Father in the same way Jesus is, are we? If so, we'd have an odd mix of polyunitarianism and self-worship.

No, we are not, but that is our goal, and I know our Lord STILL prays about that.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Hello Ray,

You said:

And btw, I believe the "worship" I will get then will be an improvement to the "worship" I get now, as my children "honor" me as their Father.

Do you see this as "taking over" the worship of God the Father? After all, others will be worshiping you not Him.

Just trying to understand,

Dr. T

Dr. T, good question. I think the term "taking over" worship would only apply if, say, you or any other spirit child of God started worshipping me instead of God.

For the sake of argument, say that I am exalted; become a god; have my own spirit children; clothe them in mortal bodies and give them the chance to become like me that God gave me to become like Him...in that event, those beings would only know to worship me. Hence, since they had never worshipped God (my God), it wouldn't be taking over anything since their worship was never directed at Him.

Of course, as the King Follet Sermon so beautifully points out, my being worshipped only adds to the glory of God who made it possible, as here:

"What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; AND WHEN I GET MY KINGDOM, I shall present it to My Father, SO THAT HE MAY OBTAIN KINGDOM UPON KINGDOM, and it will exalt Him in glory."

The problem with this whole discussion, the crux of the disagreement as I see it, is that we can't comprehend an eternal "handing off" of glory up the chain of exaltation as it were, because we are finite beings in a finite world with finite mortal lives, and so we deal exclusively with beginnings and endings. Not that being able to comprehend eternity would mean we'd spontaneously link hands in a circle of ecumenical accord (cue "Ode to Joy"). I simply think frustration is bound to ensue as we repeatedly bump into the veil of eternity, resulting not in understanding but a serious need for tylenol all around. :)

****************************************************************

To sum it up, some of us think it'd rob God of glory if we were to be worshipped by beings we were responsible for bringing into existence in the eternities. (the ability to bring beings into existence, i.e. have "spirit children" in the hereafter, is a debate as white-hot as the one now under consideration).

On the other hand, some of us think that being able to have spirit children who would then worship us would only add to God's glory as we present our "kingdom" to God.

In the end passages like this from the Bible (supposed common ground here) don't bring us any closer to agreement that we can literally become like God our Father. Call it becoming a god, being exalted, whatever...the Bible teaches it, and no amount of semantic debate changes what Paul and Jesus himself taught, as here:

"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:"

"And 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." (Romans 8:16-17)

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." (Revelations 3:21)

That last quote might as well have been taken from Joseph Smith's King Follet Sermon. Only it turns out that Christ had the idea before Joseph Smith. Becoming like God and reigning as He reigns was not an idea that Joseph Smith "invented" for profit or any other ridiculous reason.

[shanstress70]

Since we're all Trinitarians here, I'm not sure this is an apt solution to the question.

But LDS aren't Trinitarians...

[Outshined]

<div class='quotemain'>

Since we're all Trinitarians here, I'm not sure this is an apt solution to the question.

But LDS aren't Trinitarians...

I think PC equates the LDS concept of God with basic Trinitarian doctrine. They aren't that different, actually; it's mostly misunderstanding about terms used.

[Dr T]

Hello Shan and Outshined,

Shanstress, I was intrigued by that comment too. I don't know if there is a thread on this topic yet (I would bet that there is) but I haven't looked into it. I didn't know that LDS held a Trinitarian view of God. In fact, I thought Smith (or some other church leader) spoke out against it. Something to the effect of "what a monster of a god that would be." Anyone wish to start a thread on that?

Thanks

[prisonchaplain]

No, we are not, but that is our goal, and I know our Lord STILL prays about that.

If I'm not mistaken, here in lies the answer to this whole controversy about the JS' sermon: there is an eventual point in exaltation when union with the nature of God takes place. If I've understood correctly--if this is the goal--then after such a union, we would receive worship WITH the Heavenly Father.

Have I accurately digested your point and LDS aspirations, Ray? Others?

[pushka]

It sounds like that to me too, PC, though some posters mention that overall glory/worship goes to Heavenly Father, via the worship our spirit children give to us, and yet other posters appear to be saying that as we aren't worshipping the God that H.F. is worshipping, then perhaps our spirit offspring will not be worshipping our H.F.

What are your opinions on that, as an evangelical? Do you think that sort of hope/expectation is blasphemous against our God/Jesus Christ/LDS Heavenly Father?

[prisonchaplain]

Hello Shan and Outshined,

Shanstress, I was intrigued by that comment too. I don't know if there is a thread on this topic yet (I would bet that there is) but I haven't looked into it. I didn't know that LDS held a Trinitarian view of God. In fact, I thought Smith (or some other church leader) spoke out against it. Something to the effect of "what a monster of a god that would be." Anyone wish to start a thread on that?

Thanks

I've been led to believe that that the LDS believe in a Trinitarian view of God, but reject the interpretations found in the early creeds. See the following attachment by BYU Religion professor, Stephen Robinson (co-author of the book, How Wide the Divide: A Mormon Evangelical Conversation).

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/respons...stians/ser7.htm

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

No, we are not, but that is our goal, and I know our Lord STILL prays about that.

If I'm not mistaken, here in lies the answer to this whole controversy about the JS' sermon: there is an eventual point in exaltation when union with the nature of God takes place. If I've understood correctly--if this is the goal--then after such a union, we would receive worship WITH the Heavenly Father.

Have I accurately digested your point and LDS aspirations, Ray? Others?

Yes, I think you do understand us correctly now, as long as you understand that after that “union” we will still be individual and separate persons, just as our Lord and our Father in heaven are still separate persons.

Or in other words, we are not among those who believe that we would become that kind of “monster” the Prophet Joseph Smith was referring to, where we would all somehow be morphed into the same “person” as our Father in heaven, our Lord, and the Holy Spirit… although we all would be like Them.

And btw, those who would worship “us” could also still worship “us” as separate and distinct persons, just as we now can worship our Lord as a separate and distinct person apart from the person known as our Father.

Heh, and also please try to realize that "we" still have a VERY LONG way to go before anyone should even begin to think about worshipping "us", and for now we should worship our Lord as our way to our Father.

[BenRaines]

In the new member discussions? I don't believe that is taught in any of the LDS Standard Works or any of the teaching manuals in the church. Authors may have written about it. Authors even who are or were Apostles in modern times but that does not make it doctrine of the LDS Church. Just as Bishops of other denominations do not speak for the Catholic Church on gay marriage or abortion.

I worship God, The Eternal Father. I recognize the sacrifice and atonement of His son, Jesus Christ and know that only by him comes salvation after all I can do.

Ben

[shanstress70]

In the new member discussions? I don't believe that is taught in any of the LDS Standard Works or any of the teaching manuals in the church. Authors may have written about it. Authors even who are or were Apostles in modern times but that does not make it doctrine of the LDS Church. Just as Bishops of other denominations do not speak for the Catholic Church on gay marriage or abortion.

I worship God, The Eternal Father. I recognize the sacrifice and atonement of His son, Jesus Christ and know that only by him comes salvation after all I can do.

Ben

Yes, in the new member discussions I was taught that LDS believe they can eventually become gods. I don't expect you to believe me, but it's true. Nothing was said specifically about ruling planets.

[prisonchaplain]

What are your opinions on that, as an evangelical? Do you think that sort of hope/expectation is blasphemous against our God/Jesus Christ/LDS Heavenly Father?

At first glance the notion that we could become gods, might some day be worshipped, my actually share a place in the godhead, etc. certainly does attract serious biblical scrutiny. Such claims might ultimately be determined to be blasphemous.

On the other hand, there are some who have tread similar ground, particularly in the Word of Faith/Prosperity gospel camp. We are children of the king, joint heirs with Christ, we will see like him for we shall be as he is, etc. LDS are not the first, and will not be the last to traverse the theological landscape of humans becoming 'little gods.' Indeed, the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus was created, and is a little god. I suppose this teaching takes that one step further, saying, in essence, "us too."

[Guest ApostleKnight]

We are children of the king, joint heirs with Christ, we will see like him for we shall be as he is, etc. LDS are not the first, and will not be the last to traverse the theological landscape of humans becoming 'little gods.' Indeed, the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus was created, and is a little god. I suppose this teaching takes that one step further, saying, in essence, "us too."

Hey PC, good to talk to you again. Consider the following verses of scripture.

"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:"

"And 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." (Romans 8:16-17)

What does the phrase "glorified together" there mean to you?

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." (Revelations 3:21)

In your opinion, what does "sitting with Christ in his throne" mean? Or perhaps, in what way did Christ sit down in his Father's throne?

I'm not asking this as a trap. I'm sure you know how I interpret them, I'd honestly be interested in knowing how you read them. Thanks.

[Maureen]

Oh, I agree that sermon can be interpreted that way; my point is simply that there is no such doctrine in the LDS Church that we will have our own planet....

I believe at the turn of the century B.H. Roberts wrote:

First, we believe that God is a being with a body in form like man's; that he possesses body, parts and passions; that in a word, God is an exalted, perfected man.

Second, we believe in a plurality of Gods.

Third, we believe that somewhere and some time in the ages to come, through development, through enlargement, through purification until perfection is attained, man at last may become like God—a God.73

73. Roberts, The Mormon Doctrine of Deity, 11.

http://www.signaturebooks.com/deity.htm

So Outshined, if a very scholarly member of the LDS church, even at the turn of the century, believed that man had the ability to be a God, why wouldn't that status make him a God to be worshipped by his children on a planet (world, kingdom), like ours?

M.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

So Outshined, if a very scholarly member of the LDS church, even at the turn of the century, believed that man had the ability to be a God, why wouldn't that status make him a God to be worshipped by his children on a planet (world, kingdom), like ours?

M.

I'm not Outshined, but I thought I'd reply anyway. I guess what alot of us are saying is that just because we believe we can become like God in attributes and perfection (through Christ's grace), doesn't mean we believe we'll assume the same role He does. Sure it's possible. Sure it could be a logical deduction. We're just saying it's not official, and hence shouldn't be used as an argument for or against the verity of LDS doctrine.

[Outshined]

<div class='quotemain'>

So Outshined, if a very scholarly member of the LDS church, even at the turn of the century, believed that man had the ability to be a God, why wouldn't that status make him a God to be worshipped by his children on a planet (world, kingdom), like ours?

M.

I'm not Outshined, but I thought I'd reply anyway. I guess what alot of us are saying is that just because we believe we can become like God in attributes and perfection (through Christ's grace), doesn't mean we believe we'll assume the same role He does. Sure it's possible. Sure it could be a logical deduction. We're just saying it's not official, and hence shouldn't be used as an argument for or against the verity of LDS doctrine.

I came in late on this one, but I can't add anything to AK's reply. Very well answered.

[Dr T]

Thanks for the link on the Doctrinal Exclusion: Trinity and the Nature of God, P.C.

I'll read it and get back to you all with my thoughts.

[prisonchaplain]

Hey PC, good to talk to you again. Consider the following verses of scripture.

"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:"

"And 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." (Romans 8:16-17)

What does the phrase "glorified together" there mean to you?

We need to start by looking at presuppositions. Non-LDS Christians start with the assumption that the early church creedal developments were directed by God, by "some called to be teachers." Thus, we agree with the following beliefs:

1. Our existence began at birth. We did not exist as premortal spirits.

2. Jesus was not created by the Father. He is co-eternal with the Father, both backwards and forwards.

3. There is only one God, period. There has only been one God. There will always only be one God.

So, what does it mean that we will jointly inherit with Jesus? That we will be glorified together with Him? We believe that we shall indeed become more than we are. We shall see as Jesus sees. We will become eternal beings. We will rule and reign with him. We will judge angels.

We will not become part of God. We don't even like the term gods. By some of the six definitions that have been offered, the term might work--but we'd avoid it for the same reason Traveler spells our Master G-d.

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." (Revelations 3:21)

In your opinion, what does "sitting with Christ in his throne" mean? Or perhaps, in what way did Christ sit down in his Father's throne?

There is an understanding that we shall indeed "reign with Christ." What this means, we can only speculate. Perhaps we will, like Joseph, be placed in authority, as ambassadors of Christ, over groups of people (planets?). However, as wise ambassadors, we'll know our limits, and always defer to the Sovereign.

I'm not asking this as a trap. I'm sure you know how I interpret them, I'd honestly be interested in knowing how you read them. Thanks.

AK, you've earned the benefit of the doubt with me. :)

[Guest ApostleKnight]

We need to start by looking at presuppositions.

I'm so glad you replied to my post. As I expected, you shed light on the issue. You hit the nail on the head, I guess alot of religious debate comes from where we stand, not how we read scripture necessarily.

While the doctrine of the trinity (Nicene style) appears to be an insuperable barrier to complete agreement, I think on the whole your description of "reigning" with Jesus and my personal beliefs are nearly parallel. I've never heard a non-LDS state so specifically what they expect of their "reward" in the next life. I learned alot from your post, thanks. Again, in my own opinion, the divide is not as wide as I had thought. :)

AK, you've earned the benefit of the doubt with me. :)

Likewise.