Exaltation Implications

[Claire]

Thanks again for the further feedback :)

 

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...

 

 

The thing is, if you are the heir, you inherit only when the king is dead, and God doesn't die. Rather, he is eternal. Our relationship with God likewise doesn't change. We are heirs to the Kingdom, and receive a place of honor within the Kingdom appropriate for the heir, but we never take our Heavenly Father's throne. We are always His children, but never his equal. There may be similarities between an infant and its father, but the infant is never-the-less much inferior to its father.

 

I agree, though, that the Catholic understanding is certainly more figurative than the LDS understanding of Father. Ultimately, I still think figuring out who's right is going to be more a matter of figuring out which Church has the authority to make the call.

 

 

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.

 

I did misunderstand what you meant by the quote. I thought you were emphasizing the plurality of gods (which it doesn't really work for) vice the God the Father bit (which it does). Sorry about the confusion.

 

My concern on the worship aspect is that, if there are "higher ups" in the supposed God heirarchy, then it seems like we should worship the "higher" God and not the "lesser." It makes more sense, at least in my mind, to aford worship to the one who set the cosmos in motion vice one who is simply another cog in the machine. If, rather, there are simply innumerable generations of Gods stretching back for eternity, it also seems as though we should honor them in the same way that one honor their grandparents and great-grandparents, with failure to do so being dishonorable at best and blasphemous at worst.

 

 

 

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]​}

 

 

I believe I touched on theosis in other Catholicism in one of my earlier posts (in fact, I think I used your third quote). I also think I mistakenly called it theism, because the words look similar and I was tired. But yes, I agree there are some similarities, but our understanding differs in that:

 

1. We believe that Christ in eternity has always been the second person of trinity (i.e. divine) and then assumed his humanity, Divinity and Humanity being two fundamentally different things (as per your first quote).

 

2. Christs humanity provided a sort of conduit for us to enter into a more intimate relationship with the divine. By joining ourselves with the human Christ, we also join with his divinity, and may become partakers in the beatific vision. We participate in God's divinity, but we do not ourselves become gods in our own right.

[Guest]

 

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]​}

 

 

Spamlds... you are conflating LDS interpretation of these quotes.  You have to remember that in Trinitarian understanding Jesus' ousia is God whereas man's ousia is Man.  In this context, Man can never be God because he is not made of God material.  Therefore, the only thing man can be is to be like unto God - having God qualities without the God ousia.  When you look at those quotes from a Trinitarian standpoint, you will see why these quotes don't support divination in the way the LDS understand it.

 

Make sense?

[estradling75]

Thanks again for the further feedback :)

 

 

The thing is, if you are the heir, you inherit only when the king is dead, and God doesn't die. Rather, he is eternal. Our relationship with God likewise doesn't change. We are heirs to the Kingdom, and receive a place of honor within the Kingdom appropriate for the heir, but we never take our Heavenly Father's throne. We are always His children, but never his equal. There may be similarities between an infant and its father, but the infant is never-the-less much inferior to its father.

 

I agree, though, that the Catholic understanding is certainly more figurative than the LDS understanding of Father. Ultimately, I still think figuring out who's right is going to be more a matter of figuring out which Church has the authority to make the call.

 

Then you have biblical scriptures calling for us to be Joint Heirs with Christ.  That sounds pretty equal to me.  While Christ could be said to be inferior to the Father its a distinction that most of us would consider close enough  :)

 

As for the authority to make the call... Generally speaking the LDS is really big on the whole pray and ask God about it deal.  His authority is undeniable.

[Claire]

Then you have biblical scriptures calling for us to be Joint Heirs with Christ.  That sounds pretty equal to me.  While Christ could be said to be inferior to the Father its a distinction that most of us would consider close enough  :)

 

As for the authority to make the call... Generally speaking the LDS is really big on the whole pray and ask God about it deal.  His authority is undeniable.

 

There's this thing in Catholic Theology called the communication of idioms. Basically, since Christ is fully man and fully God, you can say that Christ is "equal to God," even though it is only His divinity (strictly speaking) that is equal to God. Likewise, you could say that Christ suffered on the cross, even though it was only his humanity (vice his divinity) that suffered there.

 

Applied to the present discussion, we are Christ's equal with regards to his humanity, but not with regards to his divinity.

 

So, me and the boyfriend have gone back and forth on the "pray about it thing" a few times, so maybe you guys can explain it better than he can. To me, it sounds like confirmation bias at work. If you pray about the LDS church being correct, you'll get one of two answers: it's correct, or it's not. If you got the "it's true" response, then that was God. If you didn't, then that was either you or Satan at work, and you should try again. Repeat until you get the "it's true" response.

 

Obviously I'm being a bit snarky with my explanation there, but that is basically what it sounds like to me. Again, maybe it just hasn't been explained well, or maybe I'm just too hard headed :)

 

Regardless, I've always felt that God gave us our intellect so that we could use it, particularly in trying to get to know Him. Admittedly, we can be wrong, either due to bias or due to incomplete information. That being said, I do believe its possible through self-reflection and study to overcome those defects, at least to the point where we can get to the right Church (which can then subsequently fill in the rest of the blanks).

 

-Claire

[Blackmarch]

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

God is the Man (major capitol M there) of which we are extremely poor copies of. What we have been shown is we have the potential to become like him, like how Christ is like him. (or if you want the full progression we can become exactly like Christ, who is exactly like his Father).

 

Now does that make him human, I would hesitatingly/ very warily say yes.... however the big problem with that question is that the term human isn't exactly cut and dry. For instance if you have to have a certain makeup of proteins connected in a certain way that dictate how your body is built and functions then i would be more likely to say that he's probably something close but not exactly the same. But if it's more meaning on being able to feel emotion, to be self aware, to be able to think, to foresee and to make a decision on that as being human, then yes I think God would go into that category.

 

This question also has another foundation concept that needs looking at- what is a god, or what constitutes a god? I've found that my understanding has changed over time from being something that is ultimate and seperate from existance as we know it to simply any being that has the capability to know (both good and evil) and to act upon it... the difference between God (and christ) and everything else is the Greatness of God (both his ability, influence, power and his knowledge spans the universe), and that only He has the power to save those who are under him; he is to us what the greatest sun/star would be to a spark, if we were to compare ourselves like unto a flame.

(here's the authoritve bit) now supposing a person will allow God to help them get to such a greatness, they would still be under Christ, who will still be under God the Father, and would do the things that Christ would have them do, Just like Christ does the things that his Father would have him do. Really if you want to know what a person will be like if they are able to achieve everything that is possible for them to, then look at what Christ did- that's the best insight to a person's potential future.

(and here's the not authoritive bit) This progression logically suggests that God the Father would also have a father god as well, as well as various sayings from different prophets would fit this... but it hasn't been made official or canonized so it remains in the realm of speculation or personal revelation. While I (heavily) lean in this direction, it has not been made known to me, so it does not matter whether God the Father is the First God ever to exist, or just One in an infinitude of progression of such beings. (What Matters is Christ).

it's not necessarily touchy, it's just that many people jump the gun, miss a few steps, don't think things through, and then get some really weird ideas and then say thats what we believe.

[estradling75]

There's this thing in Catholic Theology called the communication of idioms. Basically, since Christ is fully man and fully God, you can say that Christ is "equal to God," even though it is only His divinity (strictly speaking) that is equal to God. Likewise, you could say that Christ suffered on the cross, even though it was only his humanity (vice his divinity) that suffered there.

 

Applied to the present discussion, we are Christ's equal with regards to his humanity, but not with regards to his divinity.

 

So, me and the boyfriend have gone back and forth on the "pray about it thing" a few times, so maybe you guys can explain it better than he can. To me, it sounds like confirmation bias at work. If you pray about the LDS church being correct, you'll get one of two answers: it's correct, or it's not. If you got the "it's true" response, then that was God. If you didn't, then that was either you or Satan at work, and you should try again. Repeat until you get the "it's true" response.

 

Obviously I'm being a bit snarky with my explanation there, but that is basically what it sounds like to me. Again, maybe it just hasn't been explained well, or maybe I'm just too hard headed :)

 

Regardless, I've always felt that God gave us our intellect so that we could use it, particularly in trying to get to know Him. Admittedly, we can be wrong, either due to bias or due to incomplete information. That being said, I do believe its possible through self-reflection and study to overcome those defects, at least to the point where we can get to the right Church (which can then subsequently fill in the rest of the blanks).

 

-Claire

 

For me the best explanation of the Prayer and be taught of God comes from the Instructions th Lord gives to Oliver Cowdery after he tried and failed to help translate the Book of Mormon.  The Lord explains why he failed.

 

 7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

 8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

 9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.

 

The whole section can be found here https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/9?lang=eng

[Guest]

So, me and the boyfriend have gone back and forth on the "pray about it thing" a few times, so maybe you guys can explain it better than he can. To me, it sounds like confirmation bias at work. If you pray about the LDS church being correct, you'll get one of two answers: it's correct, or it's not. If you got the "it's true" response, then that was God. If you didn't, then that was either you or Satan at work, and you should try again. Repeat until you get the "it's true" response.

 

This is not how it works.

 

Prayer is trying to align your will to God's will.  It would be really easy to discern the will of God if, when we pray, the Holy Spirit will say - in English (or in the language that you speak) - "This is the answer.".  Unfortunately, that's not how the Holy Spirit speaks.  Rather, the Holy Spirit gives you impressions that you then try to translate into human language.  So, you get an impression that you have learned is the Holy Spirit's way of saying No when you think about the truth of what you are reading.  That doesn't necessarily mean it is not true.  It could mean that you are not yet ready for this knowledge (you become subject to judgment for your knowledge).  Or it could mean that you need to study it more.  Or it could mean that the Catholic church is where you have a better chance of getting close to Christ.  Or it could mean that the Book of Mormon is not true.

 

In any case, as long as you are following in humility and complete honesty with the appeal to the Holy Spirit, what you believe is the path to God, you can be Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist... you're going to find the truth of Christ, if not in this life, then the next.

Edited January 15, 2015 by anatess

[pkstpaul]

So, me and the boyfriend have gone back and forth on the "pray about it thing" a few times, so maybe you guys can explain it better than he can. To me, it sounds like confirmation bias at work. If you pray about the LDS church being correct, you'll get one of two answers: it's correct, or it's not. If you got the "it's true" response, then that was God. If you didn't, then that was either you or Satan at work, and you should try again. Repeat until you get the "it's true" response.

 

Regardless, I've always felt that God gave us our intellect so that we could use it, particularly in trying to get to know Him. Admittedly, we can be wrong, either due to bias or due to incomplete information. That being said, I do believe its possible through self-reflection and study to overcome those defects, at least to the point where we can get to the right Church (which can then subsequently fill in the rest of the blanks).

 

Besides being in general agreement with Anatess, I will again rather state things in simplistic terms, although I see you are more than willing to dive into some deep discussions. There are times when the Spirit confirms things clearly whether postive or negative. But quite often we are left to use the "intellect" you state. There shouldn't be the 'repeat' until you get the response you want. I am expected to be more patient than that. Answers can take months and years or we just work things out ourselves. Having said that, I appreciate the many times the Spirit has given me confirmation and I seek the Spirit for important decisions.

[Just_A_Guy]

The thing is, if you are the heir, you inherit only when the king is dead, and God doesn't die. Rather, he is eternal.

 

Agreed; but please note that we didn't invent that metaphor--Paul did--and the hole you cite is a problem with pretty much any interpretation of his verbiage.  If a metaphor were absolutely perfect in all its applications, it wouldn't be a metaphor--it would be a literalism. 

 

 

Our relationship with God likewise doesn't change. We are heirs to the Kingdom, and receive a place of honor within the Kingdom appropriate for the heir, but we never take our Heavenly Father's throne. We are always His children, but never his equal. There may be similarities between an infant and its father, but the infant is never-the-less much inferior to its father.

 

I fully agree with you on this--with the caveat that the infant does grow up.  Offspring can become "equal" with a parent only in the sense that they can at some point attain the same sort of abilities, experiences and wisdom as the parent now possesses--but the roles of parent and child and the obligations of filial devotion remain eternally.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Blackmarch]

Another concept i've come across that might be helpful here is one on how progression works or can work- the gist of it is that once one hits the epitome of having knowledge and ability, there is also the progression of works or what one does which continues infinitely.. and in that aspect one that comes after God the Father won't ever be equal to him at any point of time, but they will be equal to what he was at a previous point in time.

[askandanswer]

Claire, re your question that we can become gods:

 

From the Doctrine and Covenants, section 132 verse 37

 

37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also andJacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into theirexaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

 

It seems that not only can we become gods, but some of us already have. This scripture tells us that it is possible, and also gives a fairly broad picture of the timeframe - in the examples of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, it took from at least the time of their death until the time this revelation was given. (didn't mean to include the yellow highlighting in my commentary) As to how its done, as others have said, the detail is lacking on that question.

[omegaseamaster75]

Claire, re your question that we can become gods:

 

From the Doctrine and Covenants, section 132 verse 37

 

37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also andJacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into theirexaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

 

It seems that not only can we become gods, but some of us already have. This scripture tells us that it is possible, and also gives a fairly broad picture of the timeframe - in the examples of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, it took from at least the time of their death until the time this revelation was given. (didn't mean to include the yellow highlighting in my commentary) As to how its done, as others have said, the detail is lacking on that question.

The issue with this scripture is that to a Catholic it is not scripture. We understand it from an LDS perspective. Other denominations will struggle with the concept.

[Guest]

The issue with this scripture is that to a Catholic it is not scripture. We understand it from an LDS perspective. Other denominations will struggle with the concept.

 

Even I struggle with that concept.  I don't understand how that scripture gets interpreted as the ancient fathers have now attained Godhood when the Plan of Salvation is not yet complete.  But that's for another thread.

[mordorbund]

The issue with this scripture is that to a Catholic it is not scripture. We understand it from an LDS perspective. Other denominations will struggle with the concept.

 

Why is that a problem in the context of this thread? The question is, "explain what you believe". Well, we believe because we  have revelation stating as much. Here it is.

 

 

On a more general note, the Gospel Principles lesson referenced in the OP even included some related scriptures for this particular topic. D&C 132:20–23:

 

 

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from ^aeverlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be ^bgods, because they have ^call power, and the angels are subject unto them.

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my ^alaw ye cannot attain to this glory.

22 For ^astrait is the gate, and narrow the ^bway that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the ^clives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me.

23 But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and shall receive your exaltation; that ^awhere I am ye shall be also.

 

That's the scriptural definition of 'gods' in the sense that Mormons use the term. For more, you can find additional scriptures like D&C 76:59–70:

 

 

59 Wherefore, ^aall things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

60 And they shall ^aovercome all things.

61 Wherefore, let no man ^aglory in man, but rather let him ^bglory in God, who shall ^csubdue all enemies under his feet.

62 These shall ^adwell in the ^bpresence of God and his Christ forever and ever.

63 These are they whom he shall bring with him, when he shall ^acome in the ^bclouds of heaven to ^creign on the earth over his people.

64 These are they who shall have part in the ^afirst resurrection.

65 These are they who shall come forth in the resurrection of the ^ajust.

66 These are they who are come unto ^aMount ^bZion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly place, the holiest of all.

67 These are they who have come to an innumerable company of ^aangels, to the general assembly and church of ^bEnoch, and of the ^cFirstborn.

68 These are they whose names are ^awritten in heaven, where God and Christ are the ^bjudge of all.

69 These are they who are ^ajust men made ^bperfect through Jesus the mediator of the ^cnew covenant, who wrought out this perfect ^datonement through the shedding of his own ^eblood.

70 These are they whose bodies are ^acelestial, whose ^bglory is that of the ^csun, even the glory of God, the ^dhighest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.

[Claire]

Agreed; but please note that we didn't invent that metaphor--Paul did--and the hole you cite is a problem with pretty much any interpretation of his verbiage.  If a metaphor were absolutely perfect in all its applications, it wouldn't be a metaphor--it would be a literalism. 

 

 

I fully agree with you on this--with the caveat that the infant does grow up.  Offspring can become "equal" with a parent only in the sense that they can at some point attain the same sort of abilities, experiences and wisdom as the parent now possesses--but the roles of parent and child and the obligations of filial devotion remain eternally.

 

I would argue that Jesus started the God as Father analogy, and you can even trace it back to some Old Testament references. The question, of course, is what was meant by that.

 

The question as I see it is whether the analogy was meant as a snapshot of what the relationship looks like or as a sort of prophesy. In the former scenario, it basically means that you're a kid living in your father's house, behave accordingly. In the latter scenario, it says all that, and also says that you will eventually grow up and become an adult in your own right, ultimately inheriting everything your father has. Catholicism tends towards the former interpretation, and Mormonism tends towards the latter. Ultimately, which is right will probably depend on which Church is right (which is another issue for another thread).

 

 

This is not how it works.

 

Prayer is trying to align your will to God's will.  It would be really easy to discern the will of God if, when we pray, the Holy Spirit will say - in English (or in the language that you speak) - "This is the answer.".  Unfortunately, that's not how the Holy Spirit speaks.  Rather, the Holy Spirit gives you impressions that you then try to translate into human language.  So, you get an impression that you have learned is the Holy Spirit's way of saying No when you think about the truth of what you are reading.  That doesn't necessarily mean it is not true.  It could mean that you are not yet ready for this knowledge (you become subject to judgment for your knowledge).  Or it could mean that you need to study it more.  Or it could mean that the Catholic church is where you have a better chance of getting close to Christ.  Or it could mean that the Book of Mormon is not true.

 

In any case, as long as you are following in humility and complete honesty with the appeal to the Holy Spirit, what you believe is the path to God, you can be Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist... you're going to find the truth of Christ, if not in this life, then the next.

 

There's this old argument for Christianity called Pascal's dilemma. It basically states that you have two options, believe in God or don't. That leaves you with four possibilities: believe in God when he does exist, believe in God when he doesn't, don't believe in God if he does exist, and don't believe in God if he doesn't. If God doesn't exist, then what you did or didn't believe really didn't matter, you're still going live and die without any major consequence. If God does exist, it certainly does matter, as eternity is at stake. The conclusion is you might as well believe in God either way.

 

Now, there are obvious problems with Pascal's dilemma, the most glaring in my mind being that it seems to discount every other religion as an option. That being said, I do subscribe to a certain variant of it. I believe that there is an objective truth out there, and that it's knowable. Bear in mind, I'm not saying that I've proven either of those two statements. What I am saying though is that if they aren't true, my actions cease to matter since they either ultimately have no bearing on anything or I have no way of knowing what their effects will be.

 

I appreciate where you're coming from by saying that God will reveal what he means for us to know on an individual basis, but for practical purposes, I feel I have to assume that some combination of reason and divine help can get me the absolute truth we all strive to get to. I don't claim to be there yet, but I have to at least assume it's possible, and I certainly hope God will provide some confirmation when I get there :)

[Vort]

Ideally, Mormons sidestep Pascal's Dilemma altogether by substituting personal experience with God for mere hope or belief. This varies between people, of course, and is certainly not limited to Latter-day Saints.

[Jane_Doe]

 

The question as I see it is whether the analogy was meant as a snapshot of what the relationship looks like or as a sort of prophesy. In the former scenario, it basically means that you're a kid living in your father's house, behave accordingly. In the latter scenario, it says all that, and also says that you will eventually grow up and become an adult in your own right, ultimately inheriting everything your father has. Catholicism tends towards the former interpretation, and Mormonism tends towards the latter. Ultimately, which is right will probably depend on which Church is right (which is another issue for another thread).

 

 

 

I'm not sure I agree on the bolded point.  Rather, I would phrase it as "Mormonism tends towards both".  

 

For today (the practical here and now), we are children's in our Father's house.  I hear that phrase all the time throughout Mormon literature and culture.  I certainly feel like a dumb kid frequently, though there are good days where I feel like "Daddy, Daddy, look what I made, isn't it so pretty?".  

 

For the future, becoming like our Father is one possibility.  Many people won't be at the highest level of glory, but will be angels in Heaven.  And what the highest degree looks like is extremely foggy to us in diapers now.  

[Jane_Doe]

 

 

My concern on the worship aspect is that, if there are "higher ups" in the supposed God heirarchy, then it seems like we should worship the "higher" God and not the "lesser." It makes more sense, at least in my mind, to aford worship to the one who set the cosmos in motion vice one who is simply another cog in the machine. If, rather, there are simply innumerable generations of Gods stretching back for eternity, it also seems as though we should honor them in the same way that one honor their grandparents and great-grandparents, with failure to do so being dishonorable at best and blasphemous at worst.

 

 

 

I don't think anyone has addressed this yet, and it is important.

 

We should NOT worship anyone besides our ONE God.  The scriptures say that over and over.  If there is a "grandpa" God, any worship of him would be completely blasphemous. 

 

Continuing your family analogy (quoted above), my dad has a dad (my grandpa). But my grandpa is not my dad and is not honored that way.  Grandpa didn't give me life, didn't change my diapers, and doesn't hold me when I cry.  I should listen to my dad's counsel and give him "I love you" hugs well before anyone else.  Grandpa just doesn't factor into the equation.  

 

If there is a "grandpa" God (something which is entirely speculative even in LDS theology), we don't know anything of him now, including how to properly honor him. 

[Vort]

I agree with almost everything you wrote, Jane_Doe, and I think this is the crux of what you write:

 

 

We should NOT worship anyone besides our ONE God.  The scriptures say that over and over.  If there is a "grandpa" God, any worship of him would be completely blasphemous.

 

I also agree and disagree slightly with your final sentence:

 

If there is a "grandpa" God (something which is entirely speculative even in LDS theology), we don't know anything of him now, including how to properly honor him. 

 

This idea of "grandpa Gods" (we might say metaGods) is indeed entirely speculative, and I would dearly hope that not one moment of quorum or other Church class time is ever wasted even mentioning it. I disagree only with the last part of your sentence: There is NO way to "properly honor" such a being, even if he exists. We have one Lord and one God. Beside him, there is no other.

 

Similarly, we have been told that the existence of a heavenly Father implies the existence of a Mother, a woman of like glory and perfection. But beyond this, we know nothing. Some skirt apostasy, or sail right on into it, by suggesting modes of worship of this Woman. But the gospel teaches us how to worship God, and says nothing of worshiping some "female generative element" or other such nonsense. If and when such worship ever becomes appropriate, it will be revealed to us through the same channels that all other such revelation in the kingdom is given. Until then, you can safely ignore anyone who talks about such things. Indeed, it's a very good idea to ignore them.

[The Folk Prophet]

Many people won't be at the highest level of glory, but will be angels in Heaven. 

 

If we're going to call the idea of "grandpa" God speculative, it should also be pointed out that the "many" part of this statement is also speculative. We have no idea how many will be angels in heaven.

 

And....back on topic.

[Claire]

I'm not sure I agree on the bolded point.  Rather, I would phrase it as "Mormonism tends towards both".  

 

For today (the practical here and now), we are children's in our Father's house.  I hear that phrase all the time throughout Mormon literature and culture.  I certainly feel like a dumb kid frequently, though there are good days where I feel like "Daddy, Daddy, look what I made, isn't it so pretty?".  

 

For the future, becoming like our Father is one possibility.  Many people won't be at the highest level of glory, but will be angels in Heaven.  And what the highest degree looks like is extremely foggy to us in diapers now.  

 

Fair point. We can both agree on what the father analogy means in the here and now. That being said, I would still say that the long term implications (i.e. whether that relationship if permanent or will evolve) is still contingent upon Church has the authority to make the interpretation.

 

I don't think anyone has addressed this yet, and it is important.

 

We should NOT worship anyone besides our ONE God.  The scriptures say that over and over.  If there is a "grandpa" God, any worship of him would be completely blasphemous. 

 

Continuing your family analogy (quoted above), my dad has a dad (my grandpa). But my grandpa is not my dad and is not honored that way.  Grandpa didn't give me life, didn't change my diapers, and doesn't hold me when I cry.  I should listen to my dad's counsel and give him "I love you" hugs well before anyone else.  Grandpa just doesn't factor into the equation.  

 

If there is a "grandpa" God (something which is entirely speculative even in LDS theology), we don't know anything of him now, including how to properly honor him. 

 

Here's where I'm not quite following. To my understanding, the LDS conception of the one God includes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are one by virtue of their wills being united in one purpose. Wouldn't the wills of any exalted humans be united in that same purpose? Likewise, if the Father did achieve exaltation in some previous human life, wouldn't he have had to do so by uniting his will to His father's, rendering all the generations back also persons of the one God? Given that, it would seem the same homage due to the three members of the Godhead would be due to any others who unite their wills to that same purpose.

 

Unless, of course, I'm entirely missing something, which is always a possibility :)

[Just_A_Guy]

Here's where I'm not quite following. To my understanding, the LDS conception of the one God includes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are one by virtue of their wills being united in one purpose. Wouldn't the wills of any exalted humans be united in that same purpose? Likewise, if the Father did achieve exaltation in some previous human life, wouldn't he have had to do so by uniting his will to His father's, rendering all the generations back also persons of the one God? Given that, it would seem the same homage due to the three members of the Godhead would be due to any others who unite their wills to that same purpose.

 

From a speculative (not doctrinal, but speculative) standpoint--I really like where you're going with this in terms of the unity of mind of the Father versus any (at this point, purely speculative) Divine Antecedents He Himself may have.  But I would still disagree as to the practical implications it might have for our worship, for the reasons Jane_Doe cites--any "grandpa god" may happen to agree perfectly with our Father; but Father (and Son, and Holy Ghost) are still the ones that minister directly to us; and that makes the relationship qualitatively different.

[Jane_Doe]

 

Here's where I'm not quite following. To my understanding, the LDS conception of the one God includes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are one by virtue of their wills being united in one purpose. Wouldn't the wills of any exalted humans be united in that same purpose? Likewise, if the Father did achieve exaltation in some previous human life, wouldn't he have had to do so by uniting his will to His father's, rendering all the generations back also persons of the one God? Given that, it would seem the same homage due to the three members of the Godhead would be due to any others who unite their wills to that same purpose.

 

Unless, of course, I'm entirely missing something, which is always a possibility :)

 

You're not messing up, as with most of your observations this is very astute.  I'm afraid my response is a little less academic.

 

Let's say my dad tells me "Stand up tall and always tell the truth".  My dad's a good dad, and I listen to his advice.  Well, my dad was actually told "Stand up tall and always tell the truth" by my grandpa, whom was in turn told by my great-grandpa.  Generations after generations have said this, because it is truth and alway has been.  

 

Now, why do I don't "Stand up tall and always tell the truth"?  Because my dad told me too!  And he's the one I honor.   Perhaps in some second-hand way it's honoring grandpa too, but I don't know that and it doesn't really matter to me, because I'm focused on honoring my dad.

[Jane_Doe]

Claire: when Father's Day comes along, do you send your Great-grandpa a Father's Day card and make him an apple pie?  Or do you focus on just your dad?

[Vort]

I would just restate that we have no doctrinal belief in any sort of a "grandpa God". That is pure speculation, and does not form any part of LDS doctrine. Such things are divine mysteries -- which in Mormon-speak means that they are knowable, but only through spiritual means and divine revelation, and not through carnal means such as study and reason.