"God once was..."

[Seminarysnoozer]

I agree that given our current understanding of the Plan of Salvation, it would be impossible for us to be a "Christ" of another world. Like us, Christ did not have a body before coming to this world. He too was tried and tempted as we were. After he died, he was resurrected and reunited with his now perfected body. Though we did not live a perfect life or atone for anyone's sins, we have also received bodies and will be resurrected. To be a Christ of our own world would necessitate that we take a step backward in our progression and give up our bodies. I don't think that is the way it works...

So, I am seeing two possible meanings of the first half of the couplet:

Either God was once a "man" as we are, a "little brother" of another Christ, and we can all progress to the same state as God eventually, or

God was once a "Christ" of his own world and had to progress through the roles of the Godhood- Holy Ghost, then Christ, then God. Since we are treading a separate path than this (we can't all be Christ's of our own worlds since we've already got bodies), then our progression is different from that of God. We will still share in the inheritance of Christ and be able to be "gods", but we cannot tread the exact same path as "God".

With either of these explanations, God once took on the coils of mortality as we did so that he could receive a body and progress into perfection, but with the second option He was always a step above us and ahead of us, something greater than we could ever be due to His different path.

Then, of course, it is also possible that the first half of the couplet is wrong and there is an entirely different explanation for God's "origins". Since we do not embrace it as doctrine, it could well be that this was insightful speculation that will someday be proven wrong with further revelation.

Right now, I'm leaning toward believing the second option... but I'm still learning and pulling things together :). I don't really have a problem with our path of progression being a bit different from that of God. In fact, I tend to find it a bit more believable that our path is not exactly the same. It does not change the fact that we can still inherit all the blessings of eternity- it just changes our standing in comparison to God and the exact role that we might play in eternity. I think it is more humbling and better supports a system of "order" since not everyone can be a leader, or there would be nobody to lead.

Thanks, I am perfectly okay with everything you say here and I appreciate you sharing this.

You said something here that allows me to understand where I think our differing views might come from but tell me if I am wrong. You said "share in the inheritance of Christ". Maybe this is a topic for another thread but I think it is in this concept where people divide on either side of the fence with this particular issue. I am curious what you mean by "share" in the inheritance. Because to me that is suggesting that we will not have the same inheritance, that it is different. I think this is very close to the story of the prodigal son. The returning son will have all just like the one who stayed.

If one gets all the father has what is it that the person doesn't get by way of their inheritance? The inheritance is based on one's obedience to what we are given in this life it is not based in the total amount of what one did. Otherwise how would we explain the child who died at the age of 7 making it into the Celestial Kingdom. If the person with one talent doubled his talent that is the same as the person with 5 talents doubling his talents, in the end they would receive the same reward. Or do we really believe that where much is given much is required ... so that that person would get much more in the next life? I don't think so.

The reward of "all" cannot be anything more than that.

Again, I think what causes a person to fall on one side of the fence or the other on this issue is an idea that inheriting all the Father has really means all or it doesn't. This is similar to your two path idea, meaning one path really doesn't lead to inheriting all where the other path only leads to inheriting all despite the fact that both brothers in the prodigal son got all in the end. The younger brother ended up having a lower job, taking care of pigs as he was away from the kingdom so to speak. Where the older brother stayed and had everything available to him. But through repentance they were back on the same level, in terms of inheritance. Even though, the older brother would rather it be based in merit-reward as opposed to love and compassion. I think we have to be careful in suggesting that our eternal reward is based in being given a specific path as opposed to what we do with the path we are given, where our heart is.

[heidirunner]

Jesus lived as a man who is part of Christ. Christ could not have been a man as an Eternal God.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Yes, this is the crux of the entire discussion.

1) Either there is a single pathway that one takes to become like God.

2) Or there are multiple ways to become like God...

3) Or there is no way that we can become like God, but perhaps we can become somekind of a god in the future.

Thanks. Even in your summary though, I don't think that those points 1 and 2 separate man and Christ as you left it vague. You may have intended it that way or maybe not, I can't tell. If you intended it that way, the more specific summary would be; 1. Either, the single path to become like God is to be the one and only Savior during one's mortal life, 2. Or one doesn't have to be a Savior in their mortal life to become like God but take advantage of the one and only Savior's atonement becoming one with Him, 3. Or there is no way that we can become like God, but perhaps we can become some kind of a God in the future.

If I say that the only way I can become like God is through Christ's atonement, then there is only one way. But that isn't to say that I would have to be a Christ. The one way through Christ' atonement and resurrection would apply to the multiple paths that people take in this life depending on what they were given.

Another way to maybe say this is that either there is one "full" inheritance or there are multiple types of "full" inheritances. Some "full" inheritances include a limitation to what that person could never have that the Father has. Or a "full" inheritance really means everything the Father has. I agree there are going to be some partial inheritance Gods out there but I think we were mostly talking about the pathway to becoming exactly like God the Father. I think we were just talking about those that become "one" with the Father by first becoming "one" with Christ.

[heidirunner]

Well I am having a hard time with the whole "Becoming a god." Alma 11:26-29 says (this is the end part) "..... Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered , No." So if there is not more than one God, how can we become a god. Is there a place in the Book of Mormon that says there is more than one true God?

[spamlds]

Orson Pratt tried to get to the end of this in his treatise on the Great First Cause, which was later published in "The Seer." The work was declared non-doctrinal" by the First Presidency and the rest of the Quorum of the Twelve. Since then, such speculations have proven equally fruitless and have led some astray.

The gospel is like the median lines painted in the middle of the road. If you keep them oriented properly, you'll make it to your destination. Although the speculative"scenery" is expansive off the edge of the highway, it's safer to stay in the proper lane and not drive off the cliff.

Folks like our sectarian clergyman friend just start salivating when Mormons go off the mark on speculative topics for which we have no revelation and which have no saving value. Faith, repentance, baptism, getting and keeping the gift of the Holy Ghost, following the prophet, etc. has more value than all these uninspired opinions and wild guesses.

[Justice]

Well I am having a hard time with the whole "Becoming a god." Alma 11:26-29 says (this is the end part) "..... Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered , No." So if there is not more than one God, how can we become a god. Is there a place in the Book of Mormon that says there is more than one true God?

It helps me to understand it this way.

A father speaks to his sons and tell them, "I am your Father, and there are no fathers besides me." His sons say, "but dad, all our friends have a father, you're not the only father." The dad says, "You are my sons, this is my house, I provide everything you need. You don't need any other fathers, and you don't answer to any other fathers. As far as you're concerned, I am the only father."

That's how I veiw God's statements in scripture about being the only one.

Isaiah 37: 16...thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth...

Thou are the one and only God, of _________. Even though the "of ________" may not always be present with the statement, it's how I understand it. "I am the only God," that we need; that saves us; that is our Father. There are none besides Him, before or after, that we need rely on or turn to for salvation.

Edited October 6, 2011 by Justice

[Vort]

Jesus lived as a man who is part of Christ.

I don't understand your meaning. Jesus was Christ. The two terms are effectively synonymous.

Christ could not have been a man as an Eternal God.

Yet he was, as the scriptures testify. See, for example, Mosiah 15:4.

[heidirunner]

Neither the Book of Mormon or the Bible say that there is more than one God. I think both agree that there can't be more than one true God. It seems to me that if we were all to become gods, wouldn't we all want our own rules and things the way we wanted them if we could become a god? If I were able to become a god, I would want something different than my husband or friends. So I am curious how we can all rule? What do you think we will do as gods???

[Dr T]

I become disturbed by the sacrilege of any human making claims to being divine. It does not matter, to me, how much verbal gymnastics are done to justify these claims. As you may know, I am not LDS and I am not “antimormon” and we have major differences with regard to this topic. I personally believe any thoughts that man, a creation, and his “sovereignty” or any claims to divinity that has been pushed since Satan in the Garden, is an offense to God. I like to talk about this of this nature but it sits uncomfortably with me. I’d be happy to read more of your thoughts on this but that is where Im coming from on this topic. Thanks

[Vort]

Neither the Book of Mormon or the Bible say that there is more than one God. I think both agree that there can't be more than one true God.

Yes.

It seems to me that if we were all to become gods, wouldn't we all want our own rules and things the way we wanted them if we could become a god?

No, of course not.

If I were able to become a god, I would want something different than my husband or friends.

Of course you would not. That is absurd. What do you suppose it means to have all power and all glory? You think it means that you just decide how you want things structured, willy-nilly, according to your own carnal weaknesses?

What do you think we will do as gods???

You have not even defined your terms, so your question cannot be answered. What are "gods", and in what sense will we "be gods"?

[Dr T]

I become disturbed by the sacrilege of any human making claims to being divine. It does not matter, to me, how much verbal gymnastics are done to justify these claims. As you may know, I am not LDS and I am not “antimormon.” I personally believe the thoughts that man, a creation, and his “sovereignty” or any claims to divinity that has been pushed since Satan in the Garden, is an offense to God. It is fun to talk about and think about but it sits uncomfortably with me. I’d be happy to read more of your thoughts on this but that is where Im coming from on this topic.

[Vort]

I become disturbed by the sacrilege of any human making claims to being divine.

So then, Jesus Christ's existence bothers you?

It does not matter, to me, how much verbal gymnastics are done to justify these claims. As you may know, I am not LDS and I am not “antimormon.” I personally believe the thoughts that man, a creation, and his “sovereignty” or any claims to divinity that has been pushed since Satan in the Garden, is an offense to God.

I don't understand. Are you saying that God cannot create something/someone equal to himself? I thought you believed God to be all-powerful.

[heidirunner]

We can't all have all power and glory and all think exactly alike. If God created something equal to himself, then He would not be all-powerful. He created us in his likeness, not exactly like Him. What if we had more than one presidentof the US? That would not work either.

[Vort]

We can't all have all power and glory and all think exactly alike.

Why not?

If God created something equal to himself, then He would not be all-powerful.

So, then, you are saying that God is incapable of creating something equal to himself. Right? So God is not all-powerful in your estimation, because he can't create a being like himself. Do I understand you correctly?

He created us in his likeness, not exactly like Him. What if we had more than one presidentof the US? That would not work either.

God is not the president of the US. The two are not comparable.

[heidirunner]

I agree in a sense. The two are not comparable in that nothing or no one can be compared to the one true God. It is the idea that we could have more than one God trying to rule. This still doesn't make sense to me. Especially since both the Book of mormon and teh Bible agree that there is only one God.

[Dr T]

Hi Vort,

So then, Jesus Christ's existence bothers you?

No sir, I am not saying Jesus' existence bothers me at all. Please tell me how you came to that conclusion so I can fill in your understanding.

I don't understand. Are you saying that God cannot create something/someone equal to himself?

Without having to rewrite it all my thoughts on this can be read here: There are some things God cannot do. http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/4671-god-can-t-do-everything.html

I thought you believed God to be all-powerful.

God is all powerful. He can do all things possibly done. The above probably has some of this answer too.

Thank for your reply Vort

[heidirunner]

The only thing God cannot do is sin. What do you think God can't do? ( Besides sin?)

[Just_A_Guy]

Before we proceed down that path and give you the deity-limiting soundbytes you so desperately crave, heidirunner, perhaps you would like to clarify whether you believe God can't or won't create other beings like Himself.

[heidirunner]

I believe He won't create or duplicate Himself. He will not make an equal. Again, the only thing God can't do is sin.

[Dr T]

I'd say God cannot act outside His character, sin is one but other things that are not possibly done are not limiting factors to consider.

[questioning_seeker]

I think God might have some difficulty in making round triangles or three sided squares

[Dr T]

That's right QS. Those things are essentially contradictory and therefore not worth pursuing

Edited October 7, 2011 by Dr T

[Snow]

I believe He won't create or duplicate Himself. He will not make an equal. Again, the only thing God can't do is sin.

No free agency. Hmmm.

[Snow]

We can't all have all power and glory and all think exactly alike. If God created something equal to himself, then He would not be all-powerful. He created us in his likeness, not exactly like Him. What if we had more than one presidentof the US? That would not work either.

That's not what all-powerful means. You are talking about uniqueness.

[JudoMinja]

Thanks, I am perfectly okay with everything you say here and I appreciate you sharing this.

You said something here that allows me to understand where I think our differing views might come from but tell me if I am wrong. You said "share in the inheritance of Christ". Maybe this is a topic for another thread but I think it is in this concept where people divide on either side of the fence with this particular issue. I am curious what you mean by "share" in the inheritance. Because to me that is suggesting that we will not have the same inheritance, that it is different. I think this is very close to the story of the prodigal son. The returning son will have all just like the one who stayed.

If one gets all the father has what is it that the person doesn't get by way of their inheritance? The inheritance is based on one's obedience to what we are given in this life it is not based in the total amount of what one did. Otherwise how would we explain the child who died at the age of 7 making it into the Celestial Kingdom. If the person with one talent doubled his talent that is the same as the person with 5 talents doubling his talents, in the end they would receive the same reward. Or do we really believe that where much is given much is required ... so that that person would get much more in the next life? I don't think so.

The reward of "all" cannot be anything more than that.

Again, I think what causes a person to fall on one side of the fence or the other on this issue is an idea that inheriting all the Father has really means all or it doesn't. This is similar to your two path idea, meaning one path really doesn't lead to inheriting all where the other path only leads to inheriting all despite the fact that both brothers in the prodigal son got all in the end. The younger brother ended up having a lower job, taking care of pigs as he was away from the kingdom so to speak. Where the older brother stayed and had everything available to him. But through repentance they were back on the same level, in terms of inheritance. Even though, the older brother would rather it be based in merit-reward as opposed to love and compassion. I think we have to be careful in suggesting that our eternal reward is based in being given a specific path as opposed to what we do with the path we are given, where our heart is.

I think that "all" can still include different positions of authority. I think that we can become "gods" but not "God". Just as a child on this earth can become like his father, inherit all his father has, and maybe even take on the same or a similar "job", but that child cannot "become" his father- I think that we can become like God, inherit all that He has, be tasked with the same or similar "jobs", but that we cannot "become" Him. I think that to do so would be another example of a step "backwards" in progression, since we would in a sense have to be "reabsorbed" into His essence and no longer be separate beings in order to "become" Him.

There are different degrees of glory in Heaven, each with different degrees of "reward". The "become gods" reward is granted only to those who reach the highest degree. I think this is part of the separation of "jobs" in Heaven. Those who get the highest reward get the Highest "job", but are still subject to the Father. I think that heaven is just as diverse, if not more so, than earth with a number of positions that need to be filled. However, unlike this earth life, no matter what position we fill our reward is "full" and we are all "equal inheritors". I think that the Law of Consecration is an example of what might be expected of us in heaven- the city of Enoch was living the Law of Consecration so perfectly that they were all taken up into heaven. Not everyone there was a leader- they all had different roles.

"All" does not necessarily mean same. Remember that we are talking about more than just a material inheretance- we are talking about an intangible inheritance. Something that no matter how much we divide it among each other, it is not lessened. Think of it like your knowledge and your emotions. When you share knowledge with another, is your knowledge lessened? When you have mulitple children and love each of them, is your total love for each child less? These intangible things are a better representation of the inheritance we can "share" with Christ. We can all have "all" without being the same or becoming the same.