Exaltation Implications

[JimmiGerman]

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?

 

(...) 

 

-Claire

 

Oh Claire... the answer is quite simple: he'd be a lower god than God the Allmighty. That's the most fundamental difference. Have you ever thought about the endless Universe and its uncountable galaxies? Have you even an idea of how grand is what HE has created? Mormonism is the Christian doctrine of the eternal evolution of the human spirit, and, as we sprang from God Allmighty's spiritual creation, and we were his spiritual children, and we were sent from the status of pre-existence here to Earth, to be free to make our decisions, to return, to find out what's right or wrong freely, to develop and improve ourselves in the sense of the everlasting truth, the Gospel, the laws God Allmighty has given to us in form of direct  or indirect revelations by the prophets or inspirations, we are one day more than we are now, because this is HIS great plan for us.

 

See the stars. See the endless universe. And see HIS endless mighty power. HE is GOD. And HE can rise HIS spirits to higher places or dimensions or let them fall. What's a planet? What's a galaxie? What's the local group of galaxies? What's a cluster of galaxies? What are myriads of galaxies? What's eternity? For HIM it's nothing. Amen.

[SpiritDragon]

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 :)

 

This is very much in line with my personal view of the matter. When Jesus offered the intercessory prayer He prayed, "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are." it seems to me that this very set-up is largely put forth (the idea of exalted beings being united as One). Jesus prays that His followers can be One with Him just as He is One with the Father. This great Oneness to me represents exaltation. It is a state of perfect love, trust, respect and so on.

Edited January 15, 2015 by SpiritDragon

[estradling75]

If we were to continue the speculation about GrandGod... It could be once you become One with the Father your physical form is not a deciding factor in the issue.  It could be that when we worship the Father that we are indeed worshiping all of them because they are one.  Of course that takes on a very Trinitarian feel (only more then three potentially) that most Mormons would shy away from

[The Folk Prophet]

If we were to continue the speculation about GrandGod... It could be once you become One with the Father your physical form is not a deciding factor in the issue. It could be that when we worship the Father that we are indeed worshiping all of them because they are one. Of course that takes on a very Trinitarian feel (only more then three potentially) that most Mormons would shy away from

Aahhrrgghh. Me eyes burn as me reads.

[Claire]

Aahhrrgghh. Me eyes burn as me reads.

 

That's just the Holy Spirit, you get used to it eventually

[Just_A_Guy]

That's just the Holy Spirit, you get used to it eventually

 

One good reason to be a Mormon is so that, when you read posts like this, you don't spew your coffee all over your keyboard.

[Guest]

Do you know...

 

That Catholic and LDS have the exact same understanding of "man becoming gods" except for this one difference that has major implications:  In LDS belief God and Man are of the exact same substance.

 

That's really the only difference... so that when the LDS says "man becomes god" he means exactly like God - a heresy in Catholic understanding where man cannot possibly be exactly like God because he is of non-God substance.

[Guest]

If we were to continue the speculation about GrandGod... It could be once you become One with the Father your physical form is not a deciding factor in the issue.  It could be that when we worship the Father that we are indeed worshiping all of them because they are one.  Of course that takes on a very Trinitarian feel (only more then three potentially) that most Mormons would shy away from

 

 

Of interesting note is the Hebrew interpretation of "Elohim". We know Elohim as God the Father, but I recently learned that "-him" is a Hebrew suffix, making a word plural.  You could speculate as much as the day is long over that one, but this could be one possible interpretation. 

Edited January 16, 2015 by Eowyn

[estradling75]

Of interesting note is the Hebrew interpretation of "Elohim". We know Elohim as God the Father, but I recently learned that "-him" is a Hebrew suffix, making a word plural.  You could speculate as much as the day is long over that one, but this could be one possible interpretation. 

 

 

I had that in mind when I posted  :)  But for the sake of TFP eyes I should have made a bigger fuss about it being speculative

[Claire]

So here's another question for you guys.

 

As has already been mentioned, the Hebrew word used for God in scriptures is "Elohim" (which is indeed a plural). Incidentally, it usually comes into Engilsh as God.

 

The the original Hebrew texts, you also get the tetragramaton (YHWH), which is regarded as the name of God. In Jewish tradition, the name is almost never spoke, so during scripture readings they use the word "adonai" in its place, meaning "lord."

 

In English translations, YHWH gets translated one of two ways typically. Sometimes it is translated as LORD (all capital letters), borrowing from that "adonai" tradition. Some also go for a more literal translation (nowadays normally Yahweh). Older German and English translations also used to substitute the vowels for "adonai" into YHWH (since vowels are a good thing to have in words), rendering it as "YaHoWaH." Incidentally, Germans pronounce Ys with a J sound and Ws with a V sound, making it "Jahovah". 

 

Unless I'm mistaken, in LDS theology, Elohim is the name of God the Father and Jehovah is the name of God the Son. Would that mean that, whenever you run into "God/Lord" in the Old Testament its referring to the Father and "LORD/Yahweh/Jehovah" is referring to the Son?

[estradling75]

Unless I'm mistaken, in LDS theology, Elohim is the name of God the Father and Jehovah is the name of God the Son. Would that mean that, whenever you run into "God/Lord" in the Old Testament its referring to the Father and "LORD/Yahweh/Jehovah" is referring to the Son?

 

More or less yes...  Elohim is probably more of a title then a name, but Jehovah is Christ according to the LDS faith.  https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/110.3?lang=eng#2

D&C 110

2 We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber.

 3 His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:

 4 I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father.

 

As for the Biblical uses we also accept the possibly of errors in the text so it might be confusing on who is addressing us

[SpiritDragon]

Perhaps this article will help, the content seems pertinent to the discussion at hand and can be considered quite authoritative.

[Crypto]

If I remember correctly, I believe that in the past Christ, who is Jehovah, presented himself in the name of the father, Elohim. On occasion this causes for a much more difficult read.

[Jane_Doe]

Speaking of the casual day-to-day life, I find Mormons (myself included) can be very sloppy in specifying if they're referring to the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost.  Personally, this doesn't bother me because it's not like the Son will tell you anything different than the Father.

[askandanswer]

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.

 

1 Corinthians 8: 5-6

 

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

 6 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 allthings, and we by him.

[Just_A_Guy]

Unless I'm mistaken, in LDS theology, Elohim is the name of God the Father and Jehovah is the name of God the Son. Would that mean that, whenever you run into "God/Lord" in the Old Testament its referring to the Father and "LORD/Yahweh/Jehovah" is referring to the Son?

 

I, for one, would disagree with that.  Assuming that Moses was indeed the author of the pentateuch, you have forty-odd books written by several dozen different authors over a span of eleven hundred years, more or less.  I'm not convinced that every one of those authors had the modern Mormon understanding of the difference between Jehovah and Elohim, let alone that they were careful to maintain that distinction in their writings (or that, even if they did observe such a distinction, subsequent scribes and copyists were careful to maintain it as they reproduced the texts).  Moreover, as I understand it, "el" is simply a generic semitic word for God and the "-ohim" suffix can be either a plural or a superlative (modifying "el" to denote "most high god" or "god of gods"). 

 

Because of these factors, I don't think one can neatly say that "YHWH" or "ADONAI" always refers to Jesus whereas "Elohim" always refers to God the Father.  Rather, I look to the context of the passage in question as well as additional LDS teachings as set out in documents like the "The Father and the Son" exposition to which SpiritDragon has already linked. 

 

It's worth noting that early Mormonism also had some confusing statements about precisely how Elohim and Jehovah related to each other and where Jesus Christ figured into all of this.  The idea of there being a Father and a Son (Jesus) was pretty clear from the time of the First Vision onwards; but as far as what their names were--not all of Joseph Smith's or Brigham Young's statements in this regard agree with each other; and for the first half century of its existence Mormonism hadn't officially resolved upon whether "Jehovah" referred to God the Father or God the Son (Jesus), or whether "Elohim" referred to God the Father or some other being in a divine council, or whether "Michael the archangel" was subordinate to Jesus or was in fact the same being as God the Father (who had supposedly come down himself to earth in the form of Adam).   It's really all quite dizzying, actually. 

 

The Father and the Son was issued in 1916 specifically to resolve the confusion, and as far as "official Mormon doctrine" goes, the question is now pretty much settled.  But that doesn't mean I feel comfortable projecting that neat distinction backwards into pre-1916 Mormon texts or scriptures.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

The Father and the Son was issued in 1916 specifically to resolve the confusion, and as far as "official Mormon doctrine" goes, the question is now pretty much settled.

 

Unless, of course, you want to get into the whole, "it's not canonized!" debate...which Jane_Doe shut me down on earlier. :) (probably wisely). Of course, as you well know, my view of what is "doctrine" is not so narrow as some who seem to want to limit it to scripture (as they interpret them) and official proclamations they agree with.

Edited January 16, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Just_A_Guy]

Unless, of course, you want to get into the whole, "it's not canonized!" debate...

 

I did say "pretty much".  Three years of law school can be distilled down into four words:  "Always use weasel words." 

[cdowis]

Have not read thru the entire thread, but the answer to your question is amply answered by the New Testament.  Read each of these scriptures carefully

 

John 17:19-23  (see especially the last verse)

 

Revelation  3:21

 

Romans 8:17

[jdf135]

Just gotta repeat this again.  Yes, even though this scripture is a bit out of context and is directed to idolatrous practitioners, it still applies to this whole discussion.

 

1 Corinthians 8: 5-6

 

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

 6 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. (over-emphasis added)

 

Bottom line:  we don't know the answer and we should probably re-direct our mental energies on focusing on the god we DO know and His son.  I know I need re-focusing every day.

[Claire]

Have not read thru the entire thread, but the answer to your question is amply answered by the New Testament.  Read each of these scriptures carefully

 

John 17:19-23  (see especially the last verse)

 

Revelation  3:21

 

Romans 8:17

 

It always helps to take verses in context when you're trying to figure out what they're talking about. John 17, for example, is towards the end of John's account of the last supper. Well, really he doesn't have a literal account in his Gospel, but its during the paschal meal just prior to the crucifixion, so you get the idea :)

 

Anyway, based on that, we know he's talking to the twelve apostles. This makes sense when you look at the earlier parts of the chapter when he says "only one of them will be lost," obviously referring to Judah.

 

Anyway, up to and including verse 19 he seems to be praying for the apostles in particular, setting them apart as witnesses of him and praying for their unity as he sends them out to the world. In verse 20, he broadens the scope of his prayer to include not just the apostles but also those who will hear the Gospel message through them.

 

An interesting thing to note in the following verses, concerning the unity of Christ to the father and the Church to Christ, is that that is always the relationship he mentions. Specifically, in verses 20 through 23 he says:

 

"It is not only for them that I pray; I pray for those who are to find faith in me through their word; that they may all be one; that they too may be one in us, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee; so that the world may come to believe that it is thou who hast sent me.  And I have given them the privilege which thou gavest to me, that they should all be one, as we are one; that while thou art in me, I may be in them, and so they may be perfectly made one. So let the world know that it is thou who hast sent me, and that thou hast bestowed thy love upon them, as thou hast bestowed it upon me."

 

Note how Jesus prays for those who receive the Gospel to be united to eachother and to him, in the same way that he is united to the father. If anything, this seems like a testimony of traditional Trinitarian theology. We are united to eachother and to Christ, who is fully human. It is only Christ who is united to the father, as the two of them are both fully divine.

 

This relationship is a big deal in John's Gospel and the historic understanding of the incarnation. God in the Old Testament Jewish understanding was too much beyond man to be fully comprehended. By assuming humanity, Christ made God knowable in a radical new way. As John says in his preamble, "No man has ever seen God; but now his only-begotten Son, who abides in the bosom of the Father, has himself become our interpreter." (John 1:18)

 

The verse from revelation comes at the end of the letter to Laodicea, which I believe is one of the churches established by Paul in Galatia. In it, that particular church is being rebuked for having become comfortable in their wealth and having grown luke-warm in their faith. After spending mast of the letter admonishing them, it closes by telling them what will be won if they do as they are commanded. Specifically, it states "Who wins the victory? I will let him share my throne with me; I too have won the victory, and now I sit sharing my Father’s throne." (Rev 3:21)

 

Note that John here establishes the same relationship that he established in his Gospel. We share the throne with Christ, who shares it with his father. Again Christ serves in an intermediary role between man and God, being man and God himself.

 

The Romans verse deals with the concept of being joint-heirs with Christ, which is a topic we've pretty much beaten to death already in the thread, so I won't go into too much again. Basically here the debate is what exactly it means to be an heir and child to an undying and eternal Master/Father. Again, We've been around on this one a few times already, so I don't think its necessary to do so again.

 

That's my interpretation of those verses. If there's some other accepted LDS one, feel free to share them with me :)

[Guest]

It always helps to take verses in context when you're trying to figure out what they're talking about. John 17, for example, is towards the end of John's account of the last supper. Well, really he doesn't have a literal account in his Gospel, but its during the paschal meal just prior to the crucifixion, so you get the idea :)

 

Anyway, based on that, we know he's talking to the twelve apostles. This makes sense when you look at the earlier parts of the chapter when he says "only one of them will be lost," obviously referring to Judah.

 

Anyway, up to and including verse 19 he seems to be praying for the apostles in particular, setting them apart as witnesses of him and praying for their unity as he sends them out to the world. In verse 20, he broadens the scope of his prayer to include not just the apostles but also those who will hear the Gospel message through them.

 

An interesting thing to note in the following verses, concerning the unity of Christ to the father and the Church to Christ, is that that is always the relationship he mentions. Specifically, in verses 20 through 23 he says:

 

"It is not only for them that I pray; I pray for those who are to find faith in me through their word; that they may all be one; that they too may be one in us, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee; so that the world may come to believe that it is thou who hast sent me.  And I have given them the privilege which thou gavest to me, that they should all be one, as we are one; that while thou art in me, I may be in them, and so they may be perfectly made one. So let the world know that it is thou who hast sent me, and that thou hast bestowed thy love upon them, as thou hast bestowed it upon me."

 

Note how Jesus prays for those who receive the Gospel to be united to eachother and to him, in the same way that he is united to the father. If anything, this seems like a testimony of traditional Trinitarian theology. We are united to eachother and to Christ, who is fully human. It is only Christ who is united to the father, as the two of them are both fully divine.

 

This relationship is a big deal in John's Gospel and the historic understanding of the incarnation. God in the Old Testament Jewish understanding was too much beyond man to be fully comprehended. By assuming humanity, Christ made God knowable in a radical new way. As John says in his preamble, "No man has ever seen God; but now his only-begotten Son, who abides in the bosom of the Father, has himself become our interpreter." (John 1:18)

 

The verse from revelation comes at the end of the letter to Laodicea, which I believe is one of the churches established by Paul in Galatia. In it, that particular church is being rebuked for having become comfortable in their wealth and having grown luke-warm in their faith. After spending mast of the letter admonishing them, it closes by telling them what will be won if they do as they are commanded. Specifically, it states "Who wins the victory? I will let him share my throne with me; I too have won the victory, and now I sit sharing my Father’s throne." (Rev 3:21)

 

Note that John here establishes the same relationship that he established in his Gospel. We share the throne with Christ, who shares it with his father. Again Christ serves in an intermediary role between man and God, being man and God himself.

 

The Romans verse deals with the concept of being joint-heirs with Christ, which is a topic we've pretty much beaten to death already in the thread, so I won't go into too much again. Basically here the debate is what exactly it means to be an heir and child to an undying and eternal Master/Father. Again, We've been around on this one a few times already, so I don't think its necessary to do so again.

 

That's my interpretation of those verses. If there's some other accepted LDS one, feel free to share them with me :)

 

Now... here's the trick... apply that same interpretation to the concept of the Godhead (as opposed to the Trinity).

 

You will see what we are talking about.

[Jane_Doe]

 

"It is not only for them that I pray; I pray for those who are to find faith in me through their word; that they may all be one; that they too may be one in us, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee; so that the world may come to believe that it is thou who hast sent me.  And I have given them the privilege which thou gavest to me, that they should all be one, as we are one; that while thou art in me, I may be in them, and so they may be perfectly made one. So let the world know that it is thou who hast sent me, and that thou hast bestowed thy love upon them, as thou hast bestowed it upon me."

 

Note how Jesus prays for those who receive the Gospel to be united to eachother and to him, in the same way that he is united to the father. If anything, this seems like a testimony of traditional Trinitarian theology. We are united to eachother and to Christ, who is fully human. It is only Christ who is united to the father, as the two of them are both fully divine.

 

 

I'm not quite following you here Claire.  How does the John quote support Trinitarian theology?  It seems quite the opposite to me, since God is united through "one substance" is a key part of Trinitarian thought, but we'll never part of God's substance.

 

Disclaimer: I totally don't understand the concept of the Trinity, but not for lack of trying.

[Guest]

I'm not quite following you here Claire.  How does the John quote support Trinitarian theology?  It seems quite the opposite to me, since God is united through "one substance" is a key part of Trinitarian thought, but we'll never part of God's substance.

 

Disclaimer: I totally don't understand the concept of the Trinity, but not for lack of trying.

 

Jane, it supports Trinitarian theology because they believe that we can be one with God even though we are of different substances because we become one with Christ who has both human and God substance at the same time.  So, we can only be one with God through Christ.  Make sense?

 

Of course... LDS also believe we can only be one with God through Christ because Christ's Atonement is what we need to cleanse us from sin to dwell with the Father who cannot abide with it.

[SpiritDragon]

Note how Jesus prays for those who receive the Gospel to be united to eachother and to him, in the same way that he is united to the father. If anything, this seems like a testimony of traditional Trinitarian theology. We are united to eachother and to Christ, who is fully human. It is only Christ who is united to the father, as the two of them are both fully divine.

 

This is interesting to me, because it seems a contradiction that Christ could be "fully" human and "fully" divine unless of course we acknowledge the two are potentially one and the same... sort of like a caterpillar to a butterfly.