"God once was..."

[JudoMinja]

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???

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.

heidirunner- This is something that we would call attempting to eat your "meat" before your "bread". You are trying to understand something that many members do not even fully understand or agree on. This is a topic that we do not consider to be "doctrine", as it is not in our scriptures. However, it is something that seems to be supported by the scriptures and that some of our past leaders have speculated on. It may be true, but we don't know for certain either way.

The most scriptural detail we have on the topic can be found in the Pearl of Great Price and Doctine and Covenants, and there are some verses in the Bible and Book of Mormon that can be interpreted to be supportive of the idea, but it is all rather vague and left to interpretation. It would be better to focus on understanding the basics before trying to understand this, and as we do not purport it to be doctrine, you would be able to come to your own opinion on the matter through prayer and study.

[sister_in_faith]

This brings to mind some questions a sister asked in a gospel principles class I took a few years ago... There was never any good answer given, and I hadn't thought about it until now... She wanted to know if God had a God... Here was the logic. So if we are hoping to progess and ultimately become 'gods' who have spirit children who progress and have their own spirit children on their own worlds etc etc... then the likelihood is that 'our' God progressed the same way we are, OR did we just 'get lucky' and get the 'original' God? I had forgotten this discussion, never really thought through an answer, until now... What do you guys think?

(adding fuel to the fire... hee hee hee!!!)

[bytebear]

Given the above question. I have two statements that you need to figure out how they fit with your postulation.

1. There is no beginning and there is no end.

2. There is only one God.

[Guest mormonmusic]

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.

See, I don't speculate much as in the end, the conclusion is the same -- I don't know. But I don't discourage it either. It seems that we are extrapolating the Church policy of "no speculation in Sunday lessons" to this forum. More controversial or speculative topics are for personal study, and I think fitting on a forum like this.

[JudoMinja]

This brings to mind some questions a sister asked in a gospel principles class I took a few years ago... There was never any good answer given, and I hadn't thought about it until now... She wanted to know if God had a God... Here was the logic. So if we are hoping to progess and ultimately become 'gods' who have spirit children who progress and have their own spirit children on their own worlds etc etc... then the likelihood is that 'our' God progressed the same way we are, OR did we just 'get lucky' and get the 'original' God? I had forgotten this discussion, never really thought through an answer, until now... What do you guys think?

(adding fuel to the fire... hee hee hee!!!)

I keep starting responses to this, and keep finding myself without the words to explain what I'm thinking... I can get a partial explanation out, but it just sounds confusing and doesn't make much sense, even though it makes sense in my head. I think this is where we start getting into the whole "beyond our mortal comprehension" mess, or at least beyond the ability of our language to explain.

We know that things work very differently in the eternities than they do in mortality. We are limited by scientific laws like gravity and conservation of matter. While I think these scientific laws play a key role in the creation and how God does things, I think that they don't quite apply the same way when we get into eternity. Again it's like the ability to have immeasurable knowledge (when you "give away" a piece of knowledge, they gain it, but you don't loose anything) or immeasurable love (can love even be divided?). These things are beyond the ability of science to explain, as science explains solid matter. Not the intangibles. There is far too much that we just don't understand.

This is why striving to understand how there can be "one God" with no beginning and no end, while we can also progress and inherit all God has gets sticky. Is our God the "original God"? Yes and no... He is the ONE God, but can there even be an "original" if there is no beginning? An original or a first is a mortal concept that doesn't work in eternity. That's as far as I can explain before words start to fail me.

[Seminarysnoozer]

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.

Thanks, If you think that is what I was saying, I didn't express myself very well. I don't think I said that we will take the place of our God but that we could become a God in the same way our God is God. You might say, well that can't be because there is only one God. Yes, for you and I there is only one God. Just like I will only have one earthly Father or Mother. And possibly in the sense that I will only have one Bishop but whenever I see my ex-Bishop I still call him Bishop. The title is never lost. How else can there be one eternal round that is progressive unless when we get back to the point where a new God is needed for that round there would need to be an additional God for an additional round, that would be how things exponentially increase. For any one person, their God would be their God always.

"All" does mean the same. 100% of something is the same as 100% of that thing no matter how you arrange it. That was my point that it is like sharing knowledge etc. It is all. So when our God got His 100% knowledge and inheritance from His God which would include experiential knowledge of what it would be like to be a Savior, He inherited "all" that was done before him and therefore became an endless, eternal being having claim to all that was done before Him. If one of us is fortunate enough to receive all that the Father has, then we would also be able to claim ownership and knowledge of all the works before us and all that we will be linked to in the future, thus being forever God.

If one does not think it is possible to inherit experiential knowledge let me ask all the women of this forum, me being one of them, I have thought about this before ... Does God know what it is like to give birth? Yes, but how? He didn't experience it, did He? No, then how could He know that? And I am talking about the joy that comes from that too, not just the possible suffering that a Savior would know. It is because it is possible to know what something is like without having to experience it but knowing it well enough as if it was experienced. There are several on this forum that believe the only way to merit what Christ has is to experience it. I do not think that is true. I think there are many things given when we inherit our Kingdom and limitless when it is the Celestial Kingdom of the highest level. Experiential knowledge could easily be passed on through a body, possibly this is why a body connected with a spirit is joy. It is the one way to pass on experiential knowledge. If we are fortunate to get the Celestial model of this body then it could contain all the experiential knowledge of all that happened before us, thus receiving all the knowledge and ability to lay claim to all that was before. .... just as an example of something that is not known at this time but to show that it is possible, in that scenario, to be a man once and then be an eternal God.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Seminarysnoozer

[JudoMinja]

Seminarysnoozer, thank you! That cleared it up for me perfectly. I can see now how the first explanation can make more sense. This, plus all the thinking I did trying to answer sister_in_faith has opened my understanding enough, I think, to see how it probably works.

There's just one thing I think this explanation leaves unaccounted for, and this is going to lead away from the original topic, but I think we've covered that well enough... What about the Holy Ghost? We have so much information on the first two members of the Godhead (Father and Son), but how does the Holy Ghost's progression fit into all of this?

We know that the Holy Ghost is just spirit at this point and does not have a body, so for the Holy Ghost to progress (s)he also needs to gain a body. Someone once told me (can't remember who) that the Holy Ghost gets a body during the millenium, when Christ is on the earth again and (s)he is no longer needed to testify of Him, since everyone will know and confess He is the Christ. I think that makes sense, but then how does one even obtain the role of "Holy Ghost"? Is the Holy Ghost another one of our brothers and sisters, or... perhaps our Heavenly Mother? That doesn't really work so well though if we believe that we can become "Heavenly Mothers" and the position thus also requires a body. So the Holy Ghost would have to be one of our siblings.... or something else entirely?

I think this is where it really steps into a speculative arena, because we pretty much have nothing on the subject. All we really know about the Holy Ghost is that (s)he is the third member of the Godhead, does not have a body, and has the "job" of testifying to everyone of Christ and the "truth of all things". The role of the Holy Ghost in the pre-existence is unknown. Perhaps, the Holy Ghost isn't even "one" person... and is actually the "voice" of all the spirits in heaven that have not yet obtained a body testifying to us of Christ. That would explain also why, in the millenium, there will no longer be a "Holy Ghost" to testify of Christ as all those spirits will have obtained bodies...

[jerome1232]

(offtopic) Am I the only one who notices that marriage and the family unit make great analogies for our relationship to God?

[Vort]

It is the idea that we could have more than one God trying to rule. This still doesn't make sense to me.

Then you will be relieved to discover that no one (except you) is making that claim.

[Vort]

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.

You wrote: "I become disturbed by the sacrilege of any human making claims to being divine." Of course, this is exactly what Jesus did.

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 happen to agree with your thoughts in this, but they are irrelevant. What I suggest (God creates a being equal with himself) is not the same as what you're talking about (God creating a rock so big he can't lift it). There is no linguistic "false-by-definition" game going on with God creating a being equal to himself.

[Vort]

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

I asked:

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?

Please answer the questions.

There are any number of things that God "cannot" do, depending on how you define "cannot". God "cannot" do meaningless, self-contradictory "things" that are not actual possibilities but merely linguistic constructs that are games, that hinge on the flexibility that language gives us.

[Vort]

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.

Please show in the Bible where this strange doctrine is taught, that God "won't create or duplicate Himself".

[Vort]

(offtopic) Am I the only one who notices that marriage and the family unit make great analogies for our relationship to God?

Sadly, yes. You are the only one. Sorry.

[Dr T]

Hi Vort,

You wrote: "I become disturbed by the sacrilege of any human making claims to being divine." Of course, this is exactly what Jesus did.

We have different definitions of god/God when we talk about who/what Jesus is. Jesus was, is, and will always be God. There was no need for progression. Jesus was always one of the trinity and took on humanity in the hypostatic union. The people wanted to kill Jesus because he was making that claim. I see Jesus as both divine and human after taking on humanity. The problem I have saying humans can become god is God is unique and a whole diff level than humanity. I believe people cannot become God. They can become gods though Thanks Vort

[Vort]

We have different definitions of god/God when we talk about who/what Jesus is. Jesus was, is, and will always be God.

Agreed. But the point is, Jesus was fully human. Your statement was:

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

Even in Trinity theology, Jesus was fully human. So your claim fails unless you discount Jesus' very existence.

The problem I have saying humans can become god is God is unique and a whole diff level than humanity. I believe people cannot become God. They can become gods though

This is very different from your claim above.

I do not believe that any Latter-day Saint here has made the claim that we can "become God". I have heard Trinitarians make such a claim, but not Latter-day Saints. God is an individual, and he is not me (or you). We do not "become" him. That is not the meaning of being one with God.

[Dr T]

Good point sir. You are correct, I was referencing all created humanity and not Jesus that was a divine being to being with and then took on humanity. I think the issue, and I'm still thinking this out, is-I can see the God I worship coming down to take on humanity but not vice versa where a person can become God. Maybe its like "we can become better" or "More godly" but we can never become fully like how I see God. I see God as uncreated, materful, and perfect. I think we are very different beings. Thanks

[Vort]

Maybe its like "we can become better" or "More godly" but we can never become fully like how I see God.

What do you suppose it means to be joint-heirs with Christ and inherit "all that the Father hath"?

I see God as uncreated, materful, and perfect. I think we are very different beings.

Why do you suppose God wants us to refer to him as Father? Christ himself even said that he was "my [Jesus'] father and your father". Do you suppose this is merely poetic device, some sort of divine rhetoric?

[Dr T]

What do you suppose it means to be joint-heirs with Christ and inherit "all that the Father hath"?

Joint heirs with Christ-"Because we are in Christ, we have the privilege of relating to the Father as Jesus does" Jesus creates that bridge for us. Let's see, in Luke 18:18 we see the rich young ruler asked Jesus, "what must I do to inherit?" But the rich young ruler missed the point because inheritance is not a matter of doing it is a matter of being - of being in the right family that Jesus allows for us.

Why do you suppose God wants us to refer to him as Father? Christ himself even said that he was "my [Jesus'] father and your father". Do you suppose this is merely poetic device, some sort of divine rhetoric?

No sir, I do not. This is fun. :) Thanks Vort

[Seminarysnoozer]

Good point sir. You are correct, I was referencing all created humanity and not Jesus that was a divine being to being with and then took on humanity. I think the issue, and I'm still thinking this out, is-I can see the God I worship coming down to take on humanity but not vice versa where a person can become God. Maybe its like "we can become better" or "More godly" but we can never become fully like how I see God. I see God as uncreated, materful, and perfect. I think we are very different beings. Thanks

In this existence we are very different beings, we are mortal and have a carnal body. If you believe in the resurrection though you probably believe that our "being" will change. If it changes at all, why would there be a limit to how much it could change ... to the point of being similar to God. Jesus prayer was to become one with Him and thus one with the Father. Does becoming one really mean staying separate, a different type of being for you?

[Dr T]

I am one with my wife, does that mean she and I are the same person?

[Vort]

I am one with my wife, does that mean she and I are the same person?

My point exactly. God and Christ are one, but this does not imply any mystic Trinity.

[Justice]

Let's see, in Luke 18:18 we see the rich young ruler asked Jesus, "what must I do to inherit?" But the rich young ruler missed the point because inheritance is not a matter of doing it is a matter of being - of being in the right family that Jesus allows for us.

You seem to be stumbling on the answer that Christ gave, or perhaps interpreting it to fit your beliefs. Look closely at Christ's response:

18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

First, Christ comments of the fact that this man called Him "good," which I'm sure has a meaning beyond what it's been translated to. I know many good people. It may be more related to perfect, complete, or some other high condition. It's interesting that Christ is referring that "God" or the Father is "good," not even Himself. This is a subtle stab at the Trinity in my view. In other scripture Christ says the Father is greater than He, again delivering the same message Luke 18.

But, after that, Christ gives the man the desired answer. First, let me refresh your memory as to the specific question asked. The man asked:

What shall I do to inherit eternal life?

This is a pointed question. Christ did not answer, "You don't have to do anything, but just believe in me." No, He said, "You must keep the commandments..." then listed some of the greatest ones. The man responded and said he had done all those things from his youth.

OK, now Christ is going to say, "Then do nothing but believe," right?

Nope.

Again, Christ gives him something to do. He tells the man to go sell all his belongings and follow Him. That is something he must do...

Do to what?

Inherit eternal life. Not, "gain a greater reward," not "be at my supper feast," but in plain language, "to inherit eternal life."

John 14: 15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Plain language. It doesn't say "When you love me you will keep my commandments."

If makes the statement predicated on doing. "If you love me..." meaning the judgement is what comes next, or the criteria you can know by which you love is... if you "keep my commandments."

John 14: 21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

By way of comparison, so to make it crystal clear:

John 15: 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.

And look at these companion verses that use a different word, "know:"

John 17: 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

1 John 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

Eternal Life is not the same thing as Immortality. All will gain immortality because of the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Only those who keep Christ's commandments sufficiently as He judges, intently, humbly, and honestly, will gain Eternal Life, or will live the kind of life God lives.

So, yes! The commandments teach you to become something. If you do not learn to keep the commandments then you have not "become."

Edited October 7, 2011 by Justice

[Seminarysnoozer]

I am one with my wife, does that mean she and I are the same person?

No but that wasn't my point. But, I am sure you would say that part of the meaning is that you are equals and similar. Using the word "one" usually isn't a way to point out differences.

[Dr T]

My point exactly. God and Christ are one, but this does not imply any mystic Trinity.

The Bible says to expect your response. It is not mystical but just the way it is.

[Dr T]

You seem to be stumbling on the answer that Christ gave, or perhaps interpreting it to fit your beliefs. Look closely at Christ's response:

18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

First, Christ comments of the fact that this man called Him "good," which I'm sure has a meaning beyond what it's been translated to. I know many good people. It may be more related to perfect, complete, or some other high condition. It's interesting that Christ is referring that "God" or the Father is "good," not even Himself. This is a subtle stab at the Trinity in my view. In other scripture Christ says the Father is greater than He, again delivering the same message Luke 18.

But, after that, Christ gives the man the desired answer. First, let me refresh your memory as to the specific question asked. The man asked:

What shall I do to inherit eternal life?

This is a pointed question. Christ did not answer, "You don't have to do anything, but just believe in me." No, He said, "You must keep the commandments..." then listed some of the greatest ones. The man responded and said he had done all those things from his youth.

OK, now Christ is going to say, "Then do nothing but believe," right?

Nope.

Again, Christ gives him something to do. He tells the man to go sell all his belongings and follow Him. That is something he must do...

Do to what?

Inherit eternal life. Not, "gain a greater reward," not "be at my supper feast," but in plain language, "to inherit eternal life."

John 14: 15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Plain language. It doesn't say "When you love me you will keep my commandments."

If makes the statement predicated on doing. "If you love me..." meaning the judgement is what comes next, or the criteria you can know by which you love is... if you "keep my commandments."

John 14: 21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

By way of comparison, so to make it crystal clear:

John 15: 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.

And look at these companion verses that use a different word, "know:"

John 17: 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

1 John 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

Eternal Life is not the same thing as Immortality. All will gain immortality because of the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Only those who keep Christ's commandments sufficiently as He judges, intently, humbly, and honestly, will gain Eternal Life, or will live the kind of life God lives.

So, yes! The commandments teach you to become something. If you do not learn to keep the commandments then you have not "become."

Hi,

We cannot keep all. God the Father expect/demands perfection. We cannot be perfect therefore it is ONLY though Christ life, death and resurrection-that is what it takes to make it to God. Thank the Lord!