Questions concerning deification

[Maureen]

...The only things that are important to know for salvation are the ordinances, principles, and commandments that we must follow...

Would the atonement of Christ fall under "principles"?

M.

[dahlia]

The righteous will inherit all the Father has.

Then shall they be gods.

They shall they be above all. All things are subject unto them.

They will have all power.

They shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths.

Why? These statements, to me, would appeal to the poor, the disenfranchised, the marginalized, etc. If you are a poor English peasant, wouldn't it be nice to think that one day you would be more powerful than the lord whose land you farm? Wouldn't it make accepting Mormonism easier? It doesn't make it real.

I don't need to obtain any of these things to accept Jesus, to obey the covenants I've made, and to be grateful for the Atonement.

If these concepts were important, I'd think we'd be talking about them more in church, but they are rarely, if ever, mentioned. I wonder if the Church is getting away from some of these statements from the early Church?

There is so much that is beautiful and attractive about the Church and about what we can do here on earth to improve ourselves and help our fellow man; talking about power and ruling over principalities in the next life takes away from it rather than enhances it. I will be happy enough to be with my husband.

[The Folk Prophet]

Would the atonement of Christ fall under "principles"?

M.

Technically, I suppose, yes. But also, perhaps no. Hard to say. Do we need to truly understand the Atonement to keep the commandments? Maybe. I think, personally, that understanding the Atonement assists with faith and enduring to the end. However, one could, theoretically, go through life entirely obedient to the commandments, receiving all ordinances, and never really understand the Atonement. Would that person then be eliminated from eternal life for that?

But that's sort of a silly assertion on my part to make, as I don't think one could reasonably go through life faithfully enduring and keeping the commandments without learning of the power of the Atonement.

Regardless, understanding the Atonement was not given by the Savior as one of the criteria for our salvation.

[NeuroTypical]

Read of it what you will. But "all things subject unto them" reads to me as worship.

So, maybe a more appropriate thing to claim would be something like this:

"There's this guy named church on an LDS board who thinks he's going to be worshiped as a god. He points to various scriptural sources to support his notions (none of which actually say humans will ever be worshiped by other beings)."

[Dorian]

Okay, another question. You guys are sealed together as eternal families, right? So if your current kids become exalted and gods in the next life and you and your wife/husband also achieve exaltation in the next life then that means you, your spouse, and your kids are all gods with your own god/goddess spouse creation your own worlds and populating it with your own spirit children. So will you still be sealed and living eternally with your children if they're gods and sealed with their own spouse and children? Does that mean you'll also be spending eternity with your daughter/son in law and your grandkids? If this is the case - and you come from a long line of faithful Mormons - wouldn't you also be with your parents (presuming you're sealed to them too) and they with their parents (presuming they're sealed to them), etc, etc, So Heaven would be like one big extended family reunion?

How does this all work in with each individual being a god and creating their own worlds?

[NeuroTypical]

Honestly, I'm content with what the scriptures tell me. Christ inherited all the Father hath, and those who follow Christ will be His joint-heirs.

Everything else is speculation.

[The Folk Prophet]

The righteous will inherit all the Father has.

Then shall they be gods.

They shall they be above all. All things are subject unto them.

They will have all power.

They shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths.

Why? These statements, to me, would appeal to the poor, the disenfranchised, the marginalized, etc. If you are a poor English peasant, wouldn't it be nice to think that one day you would be more powerful than the lord whose land you farm? Wouldn't it make accepting Mormonism easier? It doesn't make it real.

No one ever said anything about more powerful. As has been clearly stated, we will always revere, honor, and give all glory to our Father in Heaven. Always.

But, yes, a hope for reward is, certainly appealing -- and part of why anyone seeks salvation. We hope for reward, and hope to not be punished. I leave the nature of the reward to God and trust Him that what He says that reward will be will bring me and all others who achieve salvation the greatest joy. My personal feelings on what is and isn't going to bring me joy are suspect. I am mortal and therefore unknowing and unseeing. So I turn to faith in God and His word for truth.

I don't need to obtain any of these things to accept Jesus, to obey the covenants I've made, and to be grateful for the Atonement.

Obtaining these things, or a feeling that you need to, is not really the point, as you say. The point is to accept Jesus and obey the covenants you've made. Spot on. But the promised reward is the promised reward, regardless of our feeling a need or desire for those promises. We cannot possibly comprehend the glory of salvation. So we trust the Lord. But He has giving us some limited knowledge on this. Accepting this knowledge, as far as it has been revealed, and as far as we understand it, as true, does not mean we are craving after power or trying to usurp the Lord's position.

If these concepts were important, I'd think we'd be talking about them more in church, but they are rarely, if ever, mentioned. I wonder if the Church is getting away from some of these statements from the early Church?

Well.... Questions asked. Questions answered. The fact that they are or are not important to discuss in church doesn't bear weight on their truthfulness or usefulness. They are, I agree, less useful. That doesn't necessarily mean entirely usefulness.

There is so much that is beautiful and attractive about the Church and about what we can do here on earth to improve ourselves and help our fellow man; talking about power and ruling over principalities in the next life takes away from it rather than enhances it. I will be happy enough to be with my husband.

This is an opinion. And any given person is certainly free to see what is and isn't glorious about life and the gospel. But for me these principles do not take away from anything. I find that they enhance the glory of life and our existence and God's plan for us. They are wonderful, beautiful principles that show me how much our Father in Heaven truly loves us...that His greatest desire is that we may share in His glory, power, and all that He has. I am humbled by this knowledge and amazed at His love for us as manifested within them.

[Just_A_Guy]

Okay, another question. You guys are sealed together as eternal families, right? So if your current kids become exalted and gods in the next life and you and your wife/husband also achieve exaltation in the next life then that means you, your spouse, and your kids are all gods with your own god/goddess spouse creation your own worlds and populating it with your own spirit children. So will you still be sealed and living eternally with your children if they're gods and sealed with their own spouse and children? Does that mean you'll also be spending eternity with your daughter/son in law and your grandkids? If this is the case - and you come from a long line of faithful Mormons - wouldn't you also be with your parents (presuming you're sealed to them too) and they with their parents (presuming they're sealed to them), etc, etc, So Heaven would be like one big extended family reunion?

How does this all work in with each individual being a god and creating their own worlds?

I think most Mormons would say "yes". And Joseph Smith's ultimate vision, I think, was that the entire human family would be sealed together.

But I take what may be a somewhat less orthodox view. Most Mormons I've talked to seem to view the sealing as guaranteeing perpetual and uninterrupted physical proximity. I don't subscribe to that view. After all, in the here-and-now I'm sealed to my parents, but I live six hundred miles away from them. They're still my parents. I'm still the recipient of great blessings by virtue of what they have done for me--and, I hope, vice-versa. We can see each other whenever we wish. But my wife's and my domicile (which we share with those of our children who have not yet grown up and left home) is in one location; and my parents' domicile is in another.

Again, this is speculation. Your mileage may vary.

[The Folk Prophet]

So, maybe a more appropriate thing to claim would be something like this:

"There's this guy named church on an LDS board who thinks he's going to be worshiped as a god. He points to various scriptural sources to support his notions (none of which actually say humans will ever be worshiped by other beings)."

Of course it's what I think. Everything anyone proposes is what they think.

The words mean what they mean. Subject means what it means. All means what it means. Seed means what it means. And worship means what it means.

You're condescending approach to shame me into relinquishing the obvious does not compel me.

[Vort]

Some of these things are at the very core of the plan of salvation.

Nah. Faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost are the core of the plan of salvation. Much of the rest we are not in a position to understand.

My policy has been to tell my children (1) what I think they need to know and (2) what they ask me for. For example, one child did not ask about sex, so we told her when we thought it appropriate. But we didn't do that at three; she would not have understood it, and she would have gotten some strange ideas.

We have been told that we will "inherit all that the Father hath". We are told that the exalted "shall be gods". But we are NOT told precisely what that means. What does God do for a living? Is he a university president? Street sweeper? What role does he play in his society? How does he interact with his peers? What, exactly, is the nature of celestial social intercourse?

We know exactly none of these things. Until we do, we are not in a position to understand what it means to "be gods" or to "inherit all that the Father hath". So speculation is almost certainly useless. And since such expressions of speculation can easily be used as a club to batter us with -- "Just look at what those weirdo Mormons believe!" -- I think it best to keep such speculation private or, better yet, to avoid it altogether. What it means to "be gods" is less immediate, and frankly less important, than what it means to have faith.

I also disagree that anything complicated, or what might be categorized as "meat" of the gospel, means it also falls into the category of a "mystery" of the gospel.

I disagree that such things constitute the "meat" of the gospel. On the contrary, faith, hope, charity, repentance, baptism, and receiving the Holy Ghost -- these things are truly the meat, the solid food, of the gospel. Other speculations are childish fantasies, spiritual Dungeons and Dragons, to be indulged in privately if at all.

These things are complicated, sure. They are certainly deeper doctrine.

Again, I disagree. These things are not deep. They are very likely beyond our present capacity to understand, but they are not deep.

But they are not mysteries. Mysteries are more akin to questions like: How will the Holy Ghost get a body? Things where there are no clear teachings or revelations whatsoever.

You might find it interesting to listen to or read Elder McConkie's speech "The Mystery of Godliness". His take on such mysteries seems to differ from yours. Notably, he says that such mysteries are mysteries only to the carnal, and that they can and indeed are revealed to those who seek. But we know what expectations follow such private revelations.

[NeuroTypical]

The words mean what they mean. Subject means what it means. All means what it means. Seed means what it means. And worship means what it means.

And "things" may or may not refer to "people" or "sentient beings". It's entirely possible that your interpretation doesn't mean what you think it means. And I'm neither being condescending, nor exercising awkwardness or pseudo-humility, by flatly refusing to support your characterizations. From where I'm standing, your strong conclusions aren't as plainly supported as you think they are. I'm not trying to shame you. I'm disagreeing with you publicly.

Word to the wise church:

Site Rule #3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated.

Edited February 1, 2014 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[The Folk Prophet]

Nah. Faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost are the core of the plan of salvation. Much of the rest we are not in a position to understand.

The reason for the existence of the plan of salvation is that we may become like our Heavenly Father. This is what I mean.

My policy has been to tell my children (1) what I think they need to know and (2) what they ask me for. For example, one child did not ask about sex, so we told her when we thought it appropriate. But we didn't do that at three; she would not have understood it, and she would have gotten some strange ideas.

We have been told that we will "inherit all that the Father hath". We are told that the exalted "shall be gods". But we are NOT told precisely what that means. What does God do for a living? Is he a university president? Street sweeper? What role does he play in his society? How does he interact with his peers? What, exactly, is the nature of celestial social intercourse?

We are told, very clearly, what that means. Full details? No. But we know that it means inheriting all that he has, we know we'll have all power, we know all things will be subject unto us, and we know what His work and His glory is. We know what our work and our glory is, and will continue to be. This is not speculation.

We know exactly none of these things.

Except those things we have been told.

Until we do, we are not in a position to understand what it means to "be gods" or to "inherit all that the Father hath". So speculation is almost certainly useless. And since such expressions of speculation can easily be used as a club to batter us with -- "Just look at what those weirdo Mormons believe!" -- I think it best to keep such speculation private or, better yet, to avoid it altogether. What it means to "be gods" is less immediate, and frankly less important, than what it means to have faith.

I agree that it is less important than what it means to have faith. Worlds different. But I don't believe it is speculative to take "all" to mean "all". It means exactly what it says. We are gods in embyo, capable of becoming eternal fathers and mothers. And this, as I've said, is what being God is all about, according to Him. This is His work and His glory. We inherit that. Some see that as speculative. Fine. I have no qualms with that. But I do not see it as speculative in any regard. There have been plenty of very clear teachings that make this very plain to understand at a basic level. To state those basic things as truth is not improper.

The "Just look at what those weirdo Mormons believe" point is not compelling. We believe different things, so they think it's weird. That's on them. It's true of almost all of our doctrine. Some find the word of wisdom weird. Some find tithing weird. I doubt you could find a single principle that isn't viewed as wierd by the majority of the world. It does not validate hiding heads in the sand, nor has it ever. Truth is truth, whether seen as weird or not.

I disagree that such things constitute the "meat" of the gospel. On the contrary, faith, hope, charity, repentance, baptism, and receiving the Holy Ghost -- these things are truly the meat, the solid food, of the gospel. Other speculations are childish fantasies, spiritual Dungeons and Dragons, to be indulged in privately if at all.

This is word banter and not meaningful. So you use the term "meat" of the gospel differently than I do. Okay. By the way you are using it, I agree. I don't agree that these things are childish fantasy. Not when the prophets and apostles have taught the same. (To be clear, a few of the things stated are speculative and haven't been explicitly taught by prophets and apostles. Most of the ideas expressed have been.)

Again, I disagree. These things are not deep. They are very likely beyond our present capacity to understand, but they are not deep.

I didn't say deep. I said deeper. I agree they are not deep. Where I don't see eye-to-eye is in the idea that if something is beyond our capacity to understand that it renders it hands-off for discussion. I would dare say, for example, that the most difficult-to-understand concept in the gospel is the Atonement.

You might find it interesting to listen to or read Elder McConkie's speech "The Mystery of Godliness". His take on such mysteries seems to differ from yours. Notably, he says that such mysteries are mysteries only to the carnal, and that they can and indeed are revealed to those who seek. But we know what expectations follow such private revelations.

???? I read the entire talk. Didn't disagree with anything. My reference to "mysteries" was in response to a presumption that I read into your comments, the common expression that we should stay away from the mysteries of the kingdom. In other places we are clearly commanded to search the mysteries. McKonkie is addressing mysteries from another perspective entirely, or, rather, defining them for the purpose of his talk. From a certain point of view a mystery is anything a person doesn't know.

Regardless, word banter again. Mysteries are to be explored is, actually, my point-of-view. But only within those things that have been revealed to us. I guess we have a difference of opinion on what is and isn't revealed to us.

[The Folk Prophet]

And "things" may or may not refer to "people" or "sentient beings". It's entirely possible that your interpretation doesn't mean what you think it means. And I'm neither being condescending, nor exercising awkwardness or pseudo-humility, by flatly refusing to support your characterizations. From where I'm standing, your strong conclusions aren't as plainly supported as you think they are. I'm not trying to shame you. I'm disagreeing with you publicly.

I have been quite clear that my phrasing may have been less than clear sometimes, that I am inferring things, and that these are things "I think". It is entirely possible that it doesn't mean what I think it means. Though, to be fair, how anyone can take "all things" to not include all things, including people, places, sentient beings, etc. escapes me. But, like I said -- "I think".

My reference to awkwardness and pseudo-humiliation was a generic point not directed at any person, (though I think it was Just_a_Guy who originally said "Awkward!") but meant to imply that I believe there is an underlying motivation for struggling with these concepts that lies in a desire to be humble. But humility is not about awareness of capability, it is about a realization of dependence on God. You're presumption that I'm labeling you somehow with these terms is inaccurate.

Word to the wise church:

Quote:

Site Rule #3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this. I meant to attack your method of debate. I did not mean to personally attack you. If you feel personally attacked then I apologize.

[Finrock]

Honestly, I'm content with what the scriptures tell me. Christ inherited all the Father hath, and those who follow Christ will be His joint-heirs.

Everything else is speculation.

Except this isn't all that the scriptures and prophets have to say on the matter. I don't personally have any problem with anyone believing what they wish but to take a minute selection of scripture as an example and then say all else is speculation is just incorrect. The reality is that the scriptures and prophets say a lot more than what you believe they do.

-Finrock

[bytebear]

Would the atonement of Christ fall under "principles"?

M.

The first principle of the Gospel is Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

[bytebear]

I wonder if there is a lot of push back on this concept because it is so heretical to traditional Christian belief. Personally, I find the concept perfectly harmonious with the Gospel. The details are fuzzy, but the concept is pretty solid, in my opinion.

[Maureen]

...The only things that are important to know for salvation are the ordinances, principles, and commandments that we must follow...

Would the atonement of Christ fall under "principles"?...

...Regardless, understanding the Atonement was not given by the Savior as one of the criteria for our salvation.

The reason for my initial question was because I didn't want to assume that you may have forgot that the atonement is the foundation for mankind's salvation; hence why I wanted to know if you lumped the atonement in with principles. So I wasn't really asking if "understanding" the atonement was essential for salvation but just stating matter-of-factly that the atonement is the central doctrine of mankind's salvation. If it wasn't for the atonement, the ordinances that you believe in and practice for exaltation would be moot.

M.

[The Folk Prophet]

The reason for my initial question was because I didn't want to assume that you may have forgot that the atonement is the foundation for mankind's salvation; hence why I wanted to know if you lumped the atonement in with principles. So I wasn't really asking if "understanding" the atonement was essential for salvation but just stating matter-of-factly that the atonement is the central doctrine of mankind's salvation. If it wasn't for the atonement, the ordinances that you believe in and practice for exaltation would be moot.

M.

I don't know if I lump the atonement in with principles. It depends on what we mean by principles. In terms of principles like faith and repentance, no. In terms of principles as in concepts, yes.

You are absolutely correct that the Atonement is the central doctrine of mankind's salvation. Thank you for emphasizing that.

[dahlia]

How does this all work in with each individual being a god and creating their own worlds?

I've wondered the same thing.

[dahlia]

No one ever said anything about more powerful.

Go back to the quote I pasted in. It says "They will have all power."

[The Folk Prophet]

Go back to the quote I pasted in. It says "They will have all power."

Here's where I'm taking that from:

D&C 132:20

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.

Emphasis added.

This in no way makes anyone more powerful than the Father. The Father has all power. When those who are worthy inherit all that He has, they will inherit that power too. As noted, they will always honor, love, and worship him.

[Dorian]

I wonder if there is a lot of push back on this concept because it is so heretical to traditional Christian belief. Personally, I find the concept perfectly harmonious with the Gospel. The details are fuzzy, but the concept is pretty solid, in my opinion.

I have to say it doesn't sound too appealing to me. The idea of being an eternal family is nice; but creating worlds and populating it with my own spirit offspring who will then look up to me as God isn't my idea of Heaven.

I guess it also conflicts fairly sharply with my idea of exactly Who God is - the idea of "becoming" a god just makes no sense to me because the whole idea of God is that He just "is" eternally God without beginning and without end.

Now I have a question about Jesus Christ. I know you guys believe He is divine but do you believe He has always existed with the Father and always been divine. That in Heaven before he was born in Bethlehem He was divine, that as a baby He was divine, that as a teacher, a carpenter, etc, He was divine throughout all of this. Or do you think that He acquired divinity after His resurrection in the same way Mormons hope to become gods in the future?

If you guys believe the latter (He acquired His divinity after His death) then does that mean you believe that the Godhead originally consisted of only two divine persons and a third (the son) was added after the resurrection? So throughout the entirety of the Old Testament the Godhead was only two persons, and Christ was added on after His exaltation?

Sorry if it seems like I'm prying too much but I find whenever I've tried to ask missionaries these questions they just give me a text book answer that is clearly written to appear as mainstream as possible and gloss over pretty big differences (like when asked if they believe there's only one God they'll respond by saying "we WORSHIP only one God" which is technically true but kind of a deceptive response, really), whereas you guys seem pretty open about the differences between my Christianity and yours & that's what I find interesting.

Edited February 1, 2014 by Dorian

[Just_A_Guy]

Now I have a question about Jesus Christ. I know you guys believe He is divine but do you believe He has always existed with the Father and always been divine. That in Heaven before he was born in Bethlehem He was divine, that as a baby He was divine, that as a teacher, a carpenter, etc, He was divine throughout all of this. Or do you think that He acquired divinity after His resurrection in the same way Mormons hope to become gods in the future?

Mormons unequivocally state that Jesus was Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, the creator of the world and the lawgiver to the Hebrews. He was divine before His birth.

Now, where we might squirm a little is if someone suggested that LDS doctrine holds that Jesus was co-eternal with the Father. That's technically true, I suppose, in one sense--since Mormonism holds that a person is a combination of a spirit and a physical body; and God the Father created all spirits from something called "intelligence" which is eternal in nature. So it's semantically correct to say that Jesus is eternal in nature, just as it is semantically correct to say that WE are eternal in nature--because we, too, are beings of both body and spirit, and each spirit was organized from that eternal element called intelligence. And of course, from our puny mortal worldviews, anything longer than a couple of centuries may as well be "eternity".

But Mormonism emphatically teaches that it was God the Father who organized Jesus into His spiritual form; and I suspect mainstream Christianity would have some real reservations with that concept.

If you guys believe the latter (He acquired His divinity after His death) then does that mean you believe that the Godhead originally consisted of only two divine persons and a third (the son) was added after the resurrection? So throughout the entirety of the Old Testament the Godhead was only two persons, and Christ was added on after His exaltation?

No; by virtue of God's foreknowledge of Jesus' role, He was elevated to the Father's side well before His mortal birth. But the central personality of the Godhead is certainly God the Father. Both Jesus/Jehovah, and the Holy Spirit (whom we believe to be a personage of spirit), were at some point organized into spiritual form by the Father.

The edition of the Bible that is printed by the LDS Church includes a pretty extensive topical guide that includes citations from other works of Mormon scripture. You can find its entry on "Jesus Christ, Antemortal Existence of" online here if you'd like to dig into what our scriptures have to say about it.

Edited February 1, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Blackmarch]

I was reading Mormonism and the nature of God/Deification of man - FairMormon and noticing that the website uses a lot of quotes from the Early Church fathers that speak about the process of theosis to support LDS belief in the literal deification of mortals. I do see how one could use certain quotes from the Early Church to support the LDS position however my question is if the LDS doctrine goes further than the Early Church's conception of theosis. For example the Early Church view of deification never included anything like this:

"The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fulness of his kingdom. In other words we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood;' thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children. who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fulness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring. We will have an endless eternity for this."

—Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.48

So, questions

1) is it LDS belief that deification isn't limited to becoming like God and living in communion with Him for eternity but also includes inheriting the power to create and populate other worlds?

2) Do Temple Worthy Mormons expect to one day be worshipped by others just as we worship God the Father? When you're an exalted god will you still worship your current God?

3) If God the Father went through this process does He still currently worship His God in addition to being our God?

1A) We do not know if there is anything beyond or other than becoming like God that would qualify as or for deification.

1B ) It is believed that it will involve living in communion with him and worshipping him.

1C) The question is not whether the power to create but rather having the knowledge and the ability to do/act at a level that God does. and yes we do. I think people often forget that individuals have the power to know and to act (and from thence the ability to create), just a microscopically small measure compared to God's level and abilty.

As for populating other worlds that isn't explicitly stated, but it is a logical progression. I think you will probably find more who believe along those lines than not, but neither belief will condemn or save you.

2A) We don't know, nor is it stated. Logical progression assumes so.

2B ) We don't know. Logical progression from 1B would make it seem so.

3) We don't know, he hasn't told us. It's a good logical assumption but in the end that's what it is; a logical assumption.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Blackmarch

[bytebear]

I figure in the grand scheme of things, we are still children. If we were to talk to our kids about adult topics, and I will just throw out sex and having babies out there as an example, I am sure when one kid tells another kid about the birds and the bees, most kids would say something like "ewww..." or "that's not true" or in grown up terms, "blasphemy!" So instead we just promise them that one day they will grow up to have "all that we have" and leave the details out. We are speculating, but I don't doubt that when God promises us all that he has, and that we will share his throne, and that we will be above the angels, and will "continue for ever" I think that promise is probably far more than we can even imagine. And although some might balk at the idea of becoming like God, we are just children going "ewwwww..." because we aren't ready in our development to really understand what it all is.