Exaltation Implications

[Claire]

Okay, so I've been looking over the LDS teachings pertaining to God. They're, well, a bit different than what I'm used to.

 

Let's start with exaltation. If I'm understanding it correctly, its basically our end-goal, our highest calling. One of its chief characteristics is that one becomes a god (second blessing of exaltation found in the Gospel Principles manual). Here's where I start to have questions.

 

First of all, how does an exalted human "god" compare with God the Father (or the Son or the Holy Spirit for that matter)? Is there any fundamental difference? If not, does that mean that God as we know Him is simply a human who's already been through all this, in which case is there some other preceding god that created Him? If that's the case, how far back does this cycle go, and is there any higher creator God that set this all in motion?

 

There seem to be some LDS sources that answer some of these questions (The King Follett Sermon and some Journal of Discourses articles), but I can't tell if LDS regard these as authoritative or speculative (opinions seem to be somewhat split). For those falling in the speculative camp, it's not clear what is the authoritative teaching.

 

Anyway, I'm a bit worried I may be embarking on a touchy subject here, and that I may not necessarily have understood everything correctly. Obviously, if there are any glaring errors, feel free to smack me over the head

 

-Claire

 

[Vort]

We are God's children. Children are supposed to grow up to be like their parents. Similarly, we are to take on God's characteristics. This is implicit in Christ's charge to follow him and be as he is. The God of the Hebrews was and is not like the gods worshiped by others, who demand to be appeased in order to grant some carnal request. The God of the Hebrews wanted, and wants, his children to acquire the characteristics he has: Justice, mercy, righteousness, purity, faithfulness.

 

What exactly does this mean? There is only one sure way to find out. Follow God's commandments, make sacred covenants with him through his Priesthood authority, and walk the joyful path he puts before you. If you do this, you will find out exactly what Jesus meant when he promised to share with his followers his own inheritance of "all that the Father hath".

[Guest]

Not a touchy subject but definitely an "advanced" topic... because before we can even discuss this, you need to first understand the LDS understanding of what makes God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost God and then delve on the implications of that one single nugget.  Then it makes it easier to understand the implication of Jesus' prayer that we may be one as the Father and Christ is one out of that divergence of understanding between Catholic and LDS.

 

God's past is something that has not been revealed to us.  But, understanding the implication of the LDS understanding of what makes God God, the LDS may logically extrapolate from the pattern of our progression that have been revealed to us - but, that's really as far as you can go with it - extrapolate... which can give you several possibilities none/some/all of which may be true... or not.

 

As far as has been revealed... God the Father, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are the only persons that is God.

Edited January 13, 2015 by anatess

[The Folk Prophet]

(opinions seem to be somewhat split)

 

^ this.

 

But I tend to trust Joseph Smith's opinion on the matter over others'.

[The Folk Prophet]

it's not clear what is the authoritative teaching.

 

Oh...and as far as this goes, just as anatess has explained, it's extrapolation. However, I think it would be a bit silly to declare sermons that Joseph Smith taught as anything less than "authoritative". But...to be fair, some things we have accounts of him saying are clearly not "doctrine". This is, primarily, due to the fact that not all the records we have of what he said are reliable. The King Follett discourse is a great example of this. The different accounts of it do not match up, and it was, reportedly, windy on the day when he gave it.

 

However, it is a fairly common, and quite authoritative, teaching that God was once as we are now. The details of that, however, are, as anatess said, extrapolation. We just don't know lot more than that.

 

All in all, the basics of it are plain. The details...not so much.

[PolarVortex]

The Wikipedia article on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaltation_(Mormonism)) appears to quote LDS sources accurately and those sources helped me understand this.  I once got into a friendly debate with non-LDS relatives who asked me if I would be a god, and that seemed very blasphemous to me.

 

As a convert to the Church, I choked a bit on this concept.  But then I realized that exaltation was an English word long before the LDS Church was founded, and it carries some baggage and extra nuances that may not be relevant to the concept that the Church now called "exaltation."  In a way, I wished a different word had been coined.  I'm okay with exaltation meaning simply "to raise high or aloft."

 

As far as the "unmoved mover" or "turtles all the way down" part of your question, I have no idea, sorry.  Great question, though.  I sort of get the feeling that the Church understands God as less a creator than an organizer, who actively collaborates with us (even now) to bring about our eternal life through the Atonement and to pull us toward perfect Godliness. Perhaps others here can sharpen my comments into something more accurate.   

[Vort]

Here is an old Dan Peterson column (not really all that old, about a year) that touches on some of the topics you raise.

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2014/01/banned-in-utah-my-suppressed-newspaper-column.html

[skalenfehl]

...I tend to trust Joseph Smith's opinion on the matter over others'.

 

+1

 

The King Follet Sermon is spot on. Joseph explained it simply. I can't imagine exaltation being explained any simpler. When Jesus Christ resurrected, putting all enemies, including death, under His feet, He became as His Father, and His Father took a higher exaltation. 

 

 

Isaiah 53:10 ¶Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasureof the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

 

Adam and Eve were commanded to be fruitful. We become Christ's children (seed) through His atoning sacrifice when we follow Him, obey His commandments, are baptized with water and with the Holy Ghost, etc. 

 

 

1 Cor. 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

 21 For since by man came death, by man came also theresurrection of the dead.

 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be madealive.

 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.

 

I don't consider this a touchy subject, but rather a wonderful and glorious subject. We do not know how far back this goes. Joseph Smith explains where we are at as one eternal round. I tend to view eternity as a circle. There is no end and no beginning, but like a ferris wheel, there are points along the wheel. Infinity, on the other hand, is linear. Throughout scripture, at least LDS scripture, eternity is an infinite wheel. At least that is the best way I can explain it. This phase of mortality, where we are now, is one part of that round trip. Excellent topic! :)

[Jane_Doe]

Hi Claire,

 

No worries, this is a perfectly open topic.  Have you seen the Gospel Topics essay on it?  https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng.  You should also read Anatess response (she hit the nail).

 

As others have said, this is an 'fair-game' topic, but not a simple one.  This is partially because we just don’t know everything.  As stated in the Articles of Faith: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  (Emphasis mine).  

 

 

 

 

----  Things we do know for sure (good place to start) ---

 

1)  **Important question** Have you studied the LDS concept of God?  (Anatass touched on this).  

 

The LDS view of God does differ from the Catholic one. We see God as three personages (Father, Son, Holy Ghost), which are one in *purpose* (as opposed to substance).  "God" is three people (as seen at Jesus' baptism) working together in perfect harmony together.  

 

God wants us to join Him in His perfection.  Speaking of His disciples, Jesus prayed (John 17:21-23): 

 

"That they all may be ^aone; as thou, ^bFather, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be ^cone in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be ^aone, even as we are ^bone

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made ^perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast ^bloved them, as thou hast loved me.

 

Recap: God wants us to join Him, to be perfect and one as God is.  He wants us to be like Him.

 

 

 

-------- Things we can sorta guess -------

 

What exactly does “becoming like God” mean?  Well, I can list the traits of God and think how they can be reflected in me.  For starters, God is Love.  God is just.  God is forgiving. I can guess that in Heaven (my most perfected state) that I could be utmost loving.  Perhaps I might be all-knowing too.  God also said that He wants to share everything with me… but I’m not sure what all that means.

 

Thinking on this subject… I feel like a baby, trying to guess everything that my Father does/is.  We know so little.

 

 

 

 

------ Things we have no clue about ------

 

God’s past.  Yes, there is the Lorezno Snow quote, but beyond that quote (which is sort of a riddle itself, and not official Mormon doctrine).

 

Any “getting your own planet” thing. 

 

 

 

 

 

------ How does this play in Mormon Doctrine ----

 

 The King Follet Discourse is not official scripture.  Now, how much unofficial weight it carries... as you observed Mormons are quite varied on the issue. 

 

 

Truthfully, this is practically never discussed at church.  Rather than arguing about how Heaven looks like, we focus on the day-to-day trying to be more Christ-like (loving your neighbor, repenting our sins, etc…).  

 

 

 

------ Practical applications for today ------

 

I don’t know exactly what Heaven looks like.  And this doesn’t keep me up at night.  Why?  Because it’ll be marvelous.  And I work my hardest every day to be more Christ-like.

[The Folk Prophet]

...the Lorezno Snow quote...(which is...not official Mormon doctrine).

 

Is it not?

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/02/i-have-a-question?lang=eng (2nd section).

[Jane_Doe]

Is it not?

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/02/i-have-a-question?lang=eng (2nd section).

 

Let's skip the official/not official doctrine debate for now.  It's not canonized scripture and leave it at that.

[SpiritDragon]

First of all, how does an exalted human "god" compare with God the Father (or the Son or the Holy Spirit for that matter)? Is there any fundamental difference? If not, does that mean that God as we know Him is simply a human who's already been through all this, in which case is there some other preceding god that created Him? If that's the case, how far back does this cycle go, and is there any higher creator God that set this all in motion?

 

How an exalted person compares to God is something that (to my knowledge) can't be explained in fine detail, but it seems a safe bet to accept that they will be equal. This is based on phrases found through-out the scriptures such as "becoming one," "Joint-heirs," "sharing all the Father hath," and so on. However, the idea of equality itself can become another conversation entirely as well. For instance I consider myself equal to my wife, although we are very different... so if we are looking at equality as meaning identical... then equality with God may not be correct. I prefer to look at equality in terms of equivalent value and potential. This time as an example I'll use my earthly father. Now that I am an adult we are on equal terms speaking man to man and have mutual respect for one another. I have equal opportunity to have posterity and raise them, but I will always revere my father and even encourage my children to look to him as an example and respect his legacy. This is largely how I view our relationship with our Heavenly Father as exalted beings. We will be like children that learned from our parents and matured to a point where mutual love and respect prevail. We'll have our opportunities to go on to experience everything our Father has, while always honouring Him as our Father.

 

As for who is God's father and so on we can only speculate:

 

 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

~1 Corinthians 8:5-6

 

Whether our God has been made One with those who came before and in this way they are all one, or He is simply the ONLY one of the gods that pertains to our salvation and with which we deal doesn't change the net effect that we worship one God and God's works are one eternal round... which also speaks to the nature of how far back this goes - infinite - no beginning and no end - we likely can't comprehend it.

[Jane_Doe]

 

----  Things we do know for sure (good place to start) ---

 

 

 

(I realized I left something important off this list)

 

The Father will always be my Father and Christ will always be my Savior, no matter where I shall dwell in the next life.  Under no scenarios am I going to "replace" the Father or Savior.

[Claire]

Thanks for the responses everybody. A lot has been covered and I hardly know where to begin :)

 

To a certain extent, the "what is doctrine and what isn't" question seems fundamental to figuring out this (or really any) doctrinal questions. I've done a bit of research on the topic, and the most satisfying response I've found so far is this article:

 

http://www.staylds.com/docs/WhatIsOfficialMormonDoctrine.html

 

The basic gist is that, based on D&C 28:13, one could assume that a teaching becomes doctrine when the prophet proposes it, it is approved by the quorum of the twelve, and it is subsequently approved by a general vote of the church membership. This method seems to affirm the things that most LDS folks affirm and denies most of the kind of out there quotes you get from some general authorities (for example, the oft-cited "Adam God theory" of Brigham Young was never approved by this process and would seem to be overtly contradicted by the creation accounts given by the approved Pearl of Great Price). Any thoughts on any of that?

 

 

Here is an old Dan Peterson column (not really all that old, about a year) that touches on some of the topics you raise.

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2014/01/banned-in-utah-my-suppressed-newspaper-column.html

 

The article here is, well, interesting to say the least. I would take some issue with how it presents some of the western trends that lead to the Nicene formulation of the Trinity, and the conclusions of the author reaches seem to be borderline pantheistic (everything is God). That being said, there is some accuracy to the concept of Theism ("God became man that men might become God") being present in early Christianity, and the fact that it still caries significant weight in the East. It is also still generally considered doctrine in the West, it's just not nearly as emphasized.

 

The problem with equating Theism with exaltation seems to be that Theism  always assumes that God was not a man prior to the incarnation, but rather that assumed humanity. In essence, what its saying is that man can participate in God's divinity in a radically new way by entering into communion with Christ, who is fully God and fully man.

 

 

How an exalted person compares to God is something that (to my knowledge) can't be explained in fine detail, but it seems a safe bet to accept that they will be equal. This is based on phrases found through-out the scriptures such as "becoming one," "Joint-heirs," "sharing all the Father hath," and so on. However, the idea of equality itself can become another conversation entirely as well. For instance I consider myself equal to my wife, although we are very different... so if we are looking at equality as meaning identical... then equality with God may not be correct. I prefer to look at equality in terms of equivalent value and potential. This time as an example I'll use my earthly father. Now that I am an adult we are on equal terms speaking man to man and have mutual respect for one another. I have equal opportunity to have posterity and raise them, but I will always revere my father and even encourage my children to look to him as an example and respect his legacy. This is largely how I view our relationship with our Heavenly Father as exalted beings. We will be like children that learned from our parents and matured to a point where mutual love and respect prevail. We'll have our opportunities to go on to experience everything our Father has, while always honouring Him as our Father.

 

As for who is God's father and so on we can only speculate:

 

 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

~1 Corinthians 8:5-6

 

Whether our God has been made One with those who came before and in this way they are all one, or He is simply the ONLY one of the gods that pertains to our salvation and with which we deal doesn't change the net effect that we worship one God and God's works are one eternal round... which also speaks to the nature of how far back this goes - infinite - no beginning and no end - we likely can't comprehend it.

 

The sticking point for me on the comparison between God and my earthly father, which by extension is also kind of why this whole thing bothers me, is that I don't worship my dad. My dad, as lovely a man as he was, was not God. If we are all fundamentally the same as God, it would seem that we owe him the honor and respect due to a father, but not worship. Rather, worship ought then be reserved to the whatever is higher than Him, whatever set this all in motion. 

 

Also, the First Corinthians quote there is taken a bit out of context. It's part of a broader discourse on eating meat that has been offered to idols, and it seems fairly clear in that context that the "gods" being referenced aren't other exalted beings but rather are, well, idols. 

 

Again, thanks for the replies/insights you have all provided. It's given me quite a bit to mull over :)

[estradling75]

The sticking point for me on the comparison between God and my earthly father, which by extension is also kind of why this whole thing bothers me, is that I don't worship my dad. My dad, as lovely a man as he was, was not God. If we are all fundamentally the same as God, it would seem that we owe him the honor and respect due to a father, but not worship. Rather, worship ought then be reserved to the whatever is higher than Him, whatever set this all in motion. 

 

Lets discuss this sticking point...  First God choose the title Father...  I think it is save to assume he understood the implications that would have.  Second we accept that our Earthly Fathers are by their very natural pale, distorted, twisted versions of the Divine Model.  Third you are basing your thought on your status as an adult standing equal with your Earthly Father.  You can stand on your own now without your father, but this was not always so.  We are infants before God we depend on him for everything.  We were once infants who depended on our caregiver (I used caregiver due to the possibility of mortal failing of Fathers) for everything. To that little untrained infant 'worshiping' and 'obeying' our caregiver is clearly the best and safest path.   Due to their care we grew to the point were we could enjoy the privileges, rights, and powers as our Earthly Father (aka Adults).  When the scriptures command us to become one with Christ like he is one with the Father, the LDS perspective is that they are telling us to Grow-up Spiritually so we can enjoy the privileges, rights, and powers as our Heavily Father.  That is a brain twister for alot of people (even among some LDS)

 

Now what happens to our relationship between us and our Heavenly Father once we grow up, that were we have a bunch of unknowns...  We get really speculative at that point.

[Jane_Doe]

 

 

 

The basic gist is that, based on D&C 28:13, one could assume that a teaching becomes doctrine when the prophet proposes it, it is approved by the quorum of the twelve, and it is subsequently approved by a general vote of the church membership. This method seems to affirm the things that most LDS folks affirm and denies most of the kind of out there quotes you get from some general authorities (for example, the oft-cited "Adam God theory" of Brigham Young was never approved by this process and would seem to be overtly contradicted by the creation accounts given by the approved Pearl of Great Price). Any thoughts on any of that?

 

 

You've got a pretty good grasp on it :)  (not an easy thing to do)

 

 

 

The sticking point for me on the comparison between God and my earthly father, which by extension is also kind of why this whole thing bothers me, is that I don't worship my dad. My dad, as lovely a man as he was, was not God. If we are all fundamentally the same as God, it would seem that we owe him the honor and respect due to a father, but not worship. Rather, worship ought then be reserved to the whatever is higher than Him, whatever set this all in motion. 

 

 

The above analogy is limited, as you pointed out.  This one is limited because your Earthly dad is imperfect.  Can you imagine if he was perfect?  

 

 

 

Claire, why do you worship God?  And what do you mean by "worship"?

 

I define "worship" as giving my highest respect, admiration, praises, listening to their words, and wanting to be like that person.  I worship God because He is Perfectly loving, just, merciful, kind, knowing, patient, etc. I don't worship Him because He's made of some supernatural-unknowable substance.  Rather I worship Him cause off all that He is.  He made me, gave me life and this wonderful Earth.  He gave His son that I could wash away all the stupid stuff I've done, and start anew with Him. I tell Him "thank you" and "I love you" every day.  I owe Him everything and want nothing more than to be like Him.  If that's not worship, I don't know what is.

 

When I go to Heaven, and through Christ's blood am completely perfected, I too will be completely loving.  I too will be completely just and merciful.  If not, then how could I dwell in God's presence?  I will live with Him and be like Him (and so utterly happy).  

 

Just because I could possibly be like God one day, doesn't mean He's any less deserving of my praise (today or tomorrow).  If anything, it means He's more deserving of my worship because without Christ's sacrifice none of it would have been possible.  

[pkstpaul]

You really wanted to dive in didn't you?  I'm not reading all the responses above. My take is always simplistic. Our purpose in life isn't to figure out the eternities, it is to become/stay worthy so that after this life we can figure out the eternities. In other words, I concentrate on getting through the day without screwing up.

 

Exaltation is a billion years away (I think literally a billion). It isn't that we die, get judged and move to the Celestial Kingdom. There will be work, lots of work, to become exalted. That work isn't done on Earth, except to work toward achiving the ordinances available to you while living - endownment and sealing.  Other than that, I think it more important to tackle the "not screwing up" challenge of dealing with my fellow man.

 

Too simple? :)

[The Folk Prophet]

To a certain extent, the "what is doctrine and what isn't" question seems fundamental to figuring out this (or really any) doctrinal questions. I've done a bit of research on the topic, and the most satisfying response I've found so far is this article:

 

http://www.staylds.com/docs/WhatIsOfficialMormonDoctrine.html

 

This is one person's opinion on the matter. Many of us here disagree with this view. Others fully support it. I'm afraid you will not find a consensus in LDS thinking as to what constitutes "doctrine".

 

In reality, it's mostly a useless semantic argument though. To avoid it, it's better to simply -- well...avoid it. Instead of asking the question "what is LDS doctrine?", ask the question, "what does the LDS church teach?" or something akin.

Edited January 14, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

Let me just point this out...

 

DOCTRINE...

 

... is another one of those words that will be very confusing to a Catholic.

 

Why this is... in Catholicism, when somebody uses the word Doctrine it means that particular teaching doesn't change.  EVER.  Closed cannon, you know?

 

In LDS... Doctrinal teaching is not as fixed because... we don't believe in a closed cannon.  So, what we know now and is teaching as doctrine may not be the same as what we teach tomorrow when new revelation gives the matter more clarity or more direction.

 

Make sense?

[Guest]

I know you didn't ask the Nature of God question, so you might already know this.  But, I just want to make sure because many of the things above is easier to understand if you know the LDS view of the Nature of God.

 

LDS is not Trinitarian.

 

So, you know how in Trinitarian belief, God is eternal and there is nothing before him and nothing existed until he created them.  And that what makes God a God is his ousia and that there is nothing in any of his creation that is of that same ousia?  This makes it impossible for any of God's creations to be God.  And since there is nothing before God and nothing after God unless he created them, then there is only One God - one being with that specific ousia.  And that this ousia that is God can manifest himself into separate and distinct personages all proceeding from the other - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  So that, there is just One being that is God but this being exists in 3 Persons.  So, what makes God God, is this substance - this ousia - that nobody else has, and nobody else ever will have so there will only ever be this one God with 3 Persons (because the canon is closed there wouldn't ever become a 4th person that proceeds from any of the 3).

 

The LDS don't believe that.

 

In LDS theology, matter and energy are eternal.  It has always existed - neither created nor destroyed - but may undergo change (transformation).  Intelligence or consciousness (a form of matter/energy) is also eternal - neither created nor destroyed - but may undergo change (transformation)... This change is what we call Progression.  God, is therefore, one of these eternal intelligences.  Every single one of us are also one of these eternal intelligences.  We are all undergoing Change - a Progression.

 

So, in LDS Theology, what makes God, God?  What makes God God is his WILL.  This Will has purpose that is perfectly Good according to Perfect Truth.  This WILL chooses perfect Love.  This WILL choose perfect Freedom.  And because this intelligence that is God the Father perfectly possesses that Will - then he is God.  The intelligence that is Jesus the Christ perfectly posses that same Will - so he is God.  The intelligence that is the Holy Spirit also possesses that exact same Will... so he is also God.

 

As far as has been revealed - only these 3 persons are God.  There is only One God - that is... there is only one Perfect Will that is God.  Any other claims of being God that doesn't have this one Will is a false God.  Therefore, The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit have a Perfect Unity of Will.  We refer to this unity as the Godhead.

 

So, how did God the Father attain this Will?  He progressed towards it.  How he progressed, we do not know.  Dd his intelligence always had this Will from time immemorial?  We don't know.  As far as what has been revealed, God has always been God.

 

Now, what about man?  We are one of these eternal intelligences.  Our consciousness has always been there.  What God did for us, was show us the way to progress to become like Him - to have that Perfect Will.  If we attain that, then we become God.  The Catholics believe this is a heresy because what makes God a God is his ousia... and man doesn't have this ousia.  So if they become God (instead of just like God) that means that now there are many Gods - many ousias that is God.  And clearly, the Bible teaches there is only One God.

 

Does our attaining that Perfect Unity of Will with the Father make God lesser?  No, it does not.  Because... what makes God the Father our Father is because He is the one that gathered all of our intelligences, gave us bodies, and taught us how to be like Him by laying out this Plan of Salvation.  We worship him and him alone as our Father and Creator.  Just becase we attaned Perfect Unity with Him and inherited all that He has as he promised doesn't make him any less our Father.

 

Does the Father have his own Father?  We don't know how he progressed, so we don't know if he attained that Will by a Father gathering his intelligence the same way he gathered ours and sent him on the path of salvation like ours.  But, let's extrapolate and say that he did... that another intelligence has that Will that is God and gathered the intelligence that is now Our Father and led him towards progression until he became God... does this mean that now there are Two Gods?  No, it does not.  It is still One God.  Because, if Our Father has a Perfect Unity of Will as his Father, then his Father is another person in that One God - that One Will.

 

Understanding all that... you will see very clearly why God rejected Satan.  An essential element to attain Godhood is FREE AGENCY... that is, one cannot be impeded by ANYTHING - not even God - in making a choice to align one's Will to the Will that is God.  This is highly important.  Satan's plan was to coerce us to Unite our Will with God's.  And this is also why it was highly important that we came to earth - separated from God and separated from perfect knowledge of the nature of that Will - so that when we exercise our faith and act on that which is good... that Will was PERFECTLY FREE.

 

Okay, that's it for now.  I could write a book on this topic alone.  :)

Edited January 14, 2015 by anatess

[Claire]

Once more unto the breach!

 

Lets discuss this sticking point...  First God choose the title Father...  I think it is save to assume he understood the implications that would have.  Second we accept that our Earthly Fathers are by their very natural pale, distorted, twisted versions of the Divine Model.  Third you are basing your thought on your status as an adult standing equal with your Earthly Father.  You can stand on your own now without your father, but this was not always so.  We are infants before God we depend on him for everything.  We were once infants who depended on our caregiver (I used caregiver due to the possibility of mortal failing of Fathers) for everything. To that little untrained infant 'worshiping' and 'obeying' our caregiver is clearly the best and safest path.   Due to their care we grew to the point were we could enjoy the privileges, rights, and powers as our Earthly Father (aka Adults).  When the scriptures command us to become one with Christ like he is one with the Father, the LDS perspective is that they are telling us to Grow-up Spiritually so we can enjoy the privileges, rights, and powers as our Heavily Father.  That is a brain twister for alot of people (even among some LDS)

 

Now what happens to our relationship between us and our Heavenly Father once we grow up, that were we have a bunch of unknowns...  We get really speculative at that point.

 

I agree that God would have known the significance of the term Father, but the sense in which LDS and the sense with which other mainline Christian groups understand it varies. In LDS theology, the term seems to be literal, in that we are all spiritually God's children. In the mainline Christian sense, we are more akin to being His adopted children by virtue of our baptisms, with Christ being his only begotten Son. In the case of mainline Christianity, just as God is eternal, so is the nature of that relationship. My point, I suppose, is there's nothing in the title Father that seems to necessitate eventually becoming God's equal.

 

 

 

Claire, why do you worship God?  And what do you mean by "worship"?

 

I define "worship" as giving my highest respect, admiration, praises, listening to their words, and wanting to be like that person.  I worship God because He is Perfectly loving, just, merciful, kind, knowing, patient, etc. I don't worship Him because He's made of some supernatural-unknowable substance.  Rather I worship Him cause off all that He is.  He made me, gave me life and this wonderful Earth.  He gave His son that I could wash away all the stupid stuff I've done, and start anew with Him. I tell Him "thank you" and "I love you" every day.  I owe Him everything and want nothing more than to be like Him.  If that's not worship, I don't know what is.

 

When I go to Heaven, and through Christ's blood am completely perfected, I too will be completely loving.  I too will be completely just and merciful.  If not, then how could I dwell in God's presence?  I will live with Him and be like Him (and so utterly happy).  

 

Just because I could possibly be like God one day, doesn't mean He's any less deserving of my praise (today or tomorrow).  If anything, it means He's more deserving of my worship because without Christ's sacrifice none of it would have been possible.  

 

 

I agree that there are definitely parallels between worship and praise/respect. I would actually be willing to agree that they differ only in degree vice differing in kind. I suppose I would describe the difference like this: the amount of respect a person is due is proportional to the dignity of that person. A persons dignity is based on a number of factors: their goodness, their power, ect. Worship then would be the respect due to the highest, the one with the greatest dignity.

 

I think part of the issue I'm having here is with regard to God's "goodness." Traditional theology regards God as being "all good," meaning all good can be found within him. All of the good one finds in sports, entertainment, friends, lovers, ect are fully present in good with none of the bad stuff also being present. If there is anything that is good apart from God, that doesn't exist in God, then God is not all-good. If there is a good in the Jesus that does not exist in God the Father, then God the Father is not all good. If there is more good in heaven when your spouse is than than when they are absent, then there is some good missing from heaven, and God by extension. 

 

Everything God does for us, He does to make us partakers in his that goodness. When we go to heaven, we believe we become participants in the "beatific vision." We behold God as He is. We behold all good, and we do so with the respect, the wonder, the awe that that it is due. We can't help to do otherwise. That is what I think worship is, with worship on Earth being out meager attempts to replicate that experience, to try to catch fleeting glimpses at that vision and pay render unto it appropriate reverence.

 

To be honest, I'm not sure how this compares with worship in the LDS context. The concept of God differs too much to necessarily equate the two.

 

There have been a few posts along the lines that speculating on doctrine doesn't matter, but I can't say that I agree with that. Doctrine, what we believe to be true, is at the foundation of everything that we do. We strive to understand what is, so that we can better conform ourselves to what we ought to be.

 

Consider, for example, the Word of Wisdom (I've had a few chats with the boyfriend on this one). Revelation, if I recall correctly, forbid coffee and tea (and some other things). Some Mormons believe that this was meant to forbid caffeine in general, and also abstain from sodas. Others don't believe that to be the case, and have no objection to drinking the occasional Coke. The speculation on the doctrine behind the teaching, in this case at least, seems to have a significant effect on what the person believes is right behavior.

 

 

Let me just point this out...

 

DOCTRINE...

 

... is another one of those words that will be very confusing to a Catholic.

 

Why this is... in Catholicism, when somebody uses the word Doctrine it means that particular teaching doesn't change.  EVER.  Closed cannon, you know?

 

In LDS... Doctrinal teaching is not as fixed because... we don't believe in a closed cannon.  So, what we know now and is teaching as doctrine may not be the same as what we teach tomorrow when new revelation gives the matter more clarity or more direction.

 

Make sense?

 

I agree we differ on how much doctrine can change, though I don't think it's quite to the degree you're saying here. In Catholicism, revelation is done, but we still have "development of doctrine," which is basically where the Church refines its teachings over time. While LDS theology has the potential to get the occasional infusion of new revelation, odds are none of it will overtly contradict previously revealed dogma (though it could overturn previous disciplines, as happened with polygamy). 

 

I think at this point in the discussion, while I'm certainly open to any corrections on anything I've said about the LDS position, I think it's not so much that I don't understand what LDS believe than I don't really like what I do understand. That being said, I will be the first to admit that what I like and don't like has absolutely no bearing on what's true. The true doctrine is ultimately going to be given by whoever actually holds authority in the Church, be it the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome, or be it the General Authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint.

 

Incidentally, I think I know what my next line of inquiry is going to be (after a lot more homework)

 

Thanks again for all of your guys' help thus far! :)

[Vort]

I appreciate your discussion and Claireifications :). Let me respond to just one thing.

 

My point, I suppose, is there's nothing in the title Father that seems to necessitate eventually becoming God's equal.

 

On the contrary, the title "father" intrinsically implies sameness. Like begets like. If your father is a goat, you will be a goat. If your father is a man, you will be a man (in the sense of a human). If your father is the king, you will (or may) become a king. If your father is the devil, you will be a devil. And if your father is God...

 

What you seem rather to be suggesting is that you accept a highly figurative usage of "Father" with respect to God, and so therefore you don't feel much compulsion to believe that we are actually supposed to become as he is. (Though even here, you would grant that we are indeed supposed to adopt many of his attributes -- which ultimately is really all the LDS doctrine teaches.) And that's fine; you aren't required to believe LDS doctrine, seeing as how you're Catholic and all.

 

But the point is, the term "father" very much DOES imply sameness and the possibility of becoming that very same type of being. You are not required to accept that interpretation, but the implication is starkly obvious, and not one invented by Mormons.

[SpiritDragon]

Also, the First Corinthians quote there is taken a bit out of context. It's part of a broader discourse on eating meat that has been offered to idols, and it seems fairly clear in that context that the "gods" being referenced aren't other exalted beings but rather are, well, idols. 

 

Again, thanks for the replies/insights you have all provided. It's given me quite a bit to mull over :)

 

 

As for who is God's father and so on we can only speculate:

 

 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

~1 Corinthians 8:5-6

 

I am aware of the broader discussion of the chapter, and I'm sorry if you felt that I was cherry-picking out of context. My main point sharing the scripture still fits perfectly (in my view anyway) that we worship one God. We don't understand all of the genealogy of Heaven. Even just looking at the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost with-out speculating farther to God's parents and siblings at the end of the day we still believe in one God and not many although it seems a contradiction.

 

Further distilled down - Main point = We worship one God, The Father. Whether He had parents that are "higher up" in some God hierarchy is speculation. It makes logical sense, but our mortal minds like to have neat and tidy beginnings and endings that don't seem to get along with the idea of eternities stretching infinitely forward and backward and any other way they can stretch, nor do we seem to grasp the eternal round fully in mortality.

[spamlds]

The LDS doctrine should not be altogether unfamiliar to Roman Catholics.  Divinization is a Catholic doctrine.  Here's an example from some of the Patristic writers (click here for Wikipedia link).

 

• Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373)
  • "Therefore He was not man, and then became God, but He was God, and then became man, and that to deify us"^{[Primary 11]}
  • "for as the Lord, putting on the body, became man, so we men are deified by the Word as being taken to Him through His flesh."^{[Primary 12]}
  • "For He was made man that we might be made God."^{[Primary 13]​}

[estradling75]

I agree that God would have known the significance of the term Father, but the sense in which LDS and the sense with which other mainline Christian groups understand it varies. In LDS theology, the term seems to be literal, in that we are all spiritually God's children. In the mainline Christian sense, we are more akin to being His adopted children by virtue of our baptisms, with Christ being his only begotten Son. In the case of mainline Christianity, just as God is eternal, so is the nature of that relationship. My point, I suppose, is there's nothing in the title Father that seems to necessitate eventually becoming God's equal.

 

 

 

I think Vort clearly address the Father issue so I would like to move on to another part.  Of course there are going to be different interpretation, variations and understanding.  If we all agreed we would all be in the same church. The fact that other Christian church attach a more symbolic meaning to Father is their privilege. 

 

But if you are trying to understand the Exaltation Implications as the Mormons define it.  Then understanding (As Anatess pointed out) the fundamental shift/difference we have with other Christian churches about the nature of God is highly relevant and important.