Can we really become gods?

[Maureen]

9 minutes ago, Bad Karma said:

...There is no such thing as "Mormonism"...

What an absurd, weird thing to say, especially if you are yourself a Mormon.

M.

[Larry Cotrell]

8 hours ago, Maureen said:

What an absurd, weird thing to say, especially if you are yourself a Mormon.

M.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe some of the sentiment against the term "Mormon" comes from the idea that is clearly displayed in 3 Nephi 27:8:

 8 And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel.

 

Edited January 3, 2017 by Larry Cotrell

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe some of the sentiment against the term "Mormon" comes from the idea that is clearly displayed in 3 Nephi 27:8:

 8 And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel.

There is a lot of truth to that understanding.  I'm assuming you also already understand the desire to connect any nicknames with the official name of the Church.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

I interpret that as a flag to others that this MOE guy either is a disgruntled former member, or not really a member at all, so you shouldn't listen to what he has to say. And your basis for that entire claim is a disagreement about Masons, henotheism, and a missed reference. Am I misinterpreting your messsge? 

Wow!  Amazing.  You dug that out of the dust in the wind, but you cannot recognize the differences in our definitions of Henotheism enough to understand why we have such a disagreement.

Let me ask you about that statement above.  You've stated you're a non-Mormon.  Why would you be offended that someone mentioned you're a non-Mormon?

[MarginOfError]

39 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Wow!  Amazing.  You dug that out of the dust in the wind, but you cannot recognize the differences in our definitions of Henotheism enough to understand why we have such a disagreement.

Let me ask you about that statement above.  You've stated you're a non-Mormon.  Why would you be offended that someone mentioned you're a non-Mormon?

For the life of me, I couldn't figure out where you were pulling that from until I looked at this on a computer screen. The Religious affiliation with the user doesn't show up on the mobile site.

For some context:

I guess I'll have to figure out how to edit the religious affiliation tag. 

 

EDIT: I'll add that I see why that would be massively confusing. 

Edited January 3, 2017 by MarginOfError

[MarginOfError]

36 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

There is a lot of truth to that understanding.  I'm assuming you also already understand the desire to connect any nicknames with the official name of the Church.

Elder Ballard also has given two General Conference talks in this century where he went at length to request members stop identifying as Mormon.  A request that I can find little evidence of anyone else caring about (cough cough, Church marketing department).

[Just_A_Guy]

So, this is kind of a threadjack, but . . . 

MoE has been on self-imposed hiatus lately, but he has been a forum member since 2008--longer than me, I think.  He is an active Mormon, though his approach to doctrine and especially culture can be very unorthodox.  But I'm confident that if I were moving into his community, MoE would be there with a truck to help; if my kid needed a blessing at 2 a.m., MoE would be one of the few who would answer his phone; if my wife were sick, MoE's wife would be there with a casserole; and if an elders' quorum instructor no-showed, MoE would be able to scrape together a very passable lesson on five minutes' notice.

Now, MoE's a big boy; and is perfectly capable of defending himself.  But I'm using him as an example of a broader trend on the forum.  We get a lot of trolls and antis here, and over time forum regulars--myself included--develop a sort of "spidey sense" that (we think) helps us distinguish between those who are sincere questioners and those who--well--aren't.  But I wonder whether, of late, we haven't been overly vigilant and a little too rough on those who don't appear to toe the doctrinal line.  We used to have a number of generally-polite, kind, and believing folks who were nevertheless somewhat "out of the box" thinkers when it came to theology or politics. We disagreed, we argued, we even bickered--but we also assumed good faith, we shared good news, we got together for dinners.  Two of our members even met in real life and wound up getting married.

Speaking personally, and not as a mod--I think MormonHub is at its best when that's the dynamic that we are consciously trying to create and preserve.  And I think it's a dynamic that has been unfortunately absent from this and some other threads lately as we start perceiving those who think differently as flies in our ointment that must be mercilessly smashed.   And whether for that reason or others--a lot of those less-orthodox-but-fundamentally-good people, don't come around here anymore. 

Frankly, I have probably been part of the problem; especially on politically-oriented threads.  I'd like to invite you guys to hold me accountable in 2017 as I try to be a little less judgmental and a little more charitable in my dealings here.

/rant

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

I guess I'll have to figure out how to edit the religious affiliation tag. 

I guess you will.

3 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Elder Ballard also has given two General Conference talks in this century where he went at length to request members stop identifying as Mormon.  A request that I can find little evidence of anyone else caring about (cough cough, Church marketing department).

It's pretty clear that it is just about marketing/missionary work.

Now, back to another point. The trinity.  I've thought about this for a while now and come to the following conclusion: No.  The Trinity is no closer to monotheism than the Godhead.

Reasoning:

When the individuals in the discussion have difficulties with definitions and applying non-standard meanings, we need to ask third parties without a dog in the fight.  As mentioned elsewhere Muslims and Orthodox Jews (whom everyone agrees are monotheists) both look on the Trinity and the Godhead as perversions.  They see no difference between either of our theologies and that of Pagans and polytheists.

While I see more differences polytheists, I'll have to admit we're not monotheists and that Muslims and Jews are.  And until Trinitarians can come to a unity of faith and definition of what the trinity really is, then I'd say they don't have a leg to stand on.

Speaking of definitions: the thing is that I've had relatives who declare exactly what they believe about the trinity.  It is exactly the same as our  belief in the Godhead.  Exactly.  Others decide that modalism is a subsect of trinitarianism.  Yet others declare that modalism is a false teaching.  And still others say that there is only one and all the other mentions of Father, Son, & Spirit are metaphorical.  So, when we say that the trinity is close or not, I have to throw my hands up in the air and say "depends on who you're talking to".

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think MormonHub is at its best when that's the dynamic that we are consciously trying to create and preserve.  And I think it's a dynamic that has been unfortunately absent from this and some other threads lately as we start perceiving those who think differently as flies in our ointment that must be mercilessly smashed.   And whether for that reason or others--a lot of those less-orthodox-but-fundamentally-good people, don't come around here anymore. 

Frankly, I have probably been part of the problem; especially on politically-oriented threads.  I'd like to invite you guys to hold me accountable in 2017 as I try to be a little less judgmental and a little more charitable in my dealings here.

/rant

Alright.  In the spirit of trying to be more charitable,

@MarginOfError

I formally apologize if I came off as too harsh.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Guest

[MarginOfError]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I guess you will.

Is that better now?

[Guest]

Just now, MarginOfError said:

Is that better now?

Uncooperative Mormon... I can't argue with that.

[MarginOfError]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Uncooperative Mormon... I can't argue with that.

How cooperative of you.

[zil]

42 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Elder Ballard also has given two General Conference talks in this century where he went at length to request members stop identifying as Mormon.  A request that I can find little evidence of anyone else caring about (cough cough, Church marketing department).

Stop identifying the Church as Mormon.

Quote

While Mormon is not the full and correct name of the Church, and even though it was originally given by our detractors during our early years of persecution, it has become an acceptable nickname when applied to members rather than the institution. We do not need to stop using the name Mormon when appropriate, but we should continue to give emphasis to the full and correct name of the Church itself. In other words, we should avoid and discourage the term “Mormon Church.”

"The Importance of a Name" (see also: "Following Up")

[pam]

If the personal attacks do not stop on this thread, it will be closed.

[anatess2]

On 12/29/2016 at 3:39 PM, Zarahemla said:

The idea of exaltation is wonderful that we get to return to live with God and Jesus and our family forever, but D&C 132 says that we can become actual gods. Does that ever seen too good to be true and have modern prophets and apostles backed off from this teaching so not as to weird out converts? The first commandment given to Moses was to not have any other Gods and one Bible verse says something like there are no other gods than me, but if we believe in becoming gods then there must be countless numbers of them, even before Heavenly Father, our God. Does it seem too good to be true, or is it a very real reality that the missionaries just avoid teaching and the prophets have avoided saying the word gods in General Conference. Does that make us believe in multiple and many gods? Do you want to be one?

I didn't read any of the responses as I'm in a hurry.  But I just want to point out a VERY IMPORTANT RESTORED principle that separated the LDS Faith from the rest of mainstream Christianity.  We believe in ONE God.  We believe there are 3 Persons in that One God.  BUT as opposed to mainstream Christianity, we believe that what makes God God is not his "being" (ousia) but his WILL.

Therefore, 3 Persons being Gods - Father, Son, Holy Ghost - does not contradict ONE GOD as they have the EXACT SAME WILL in perfect unity with perfect knowledge.

100 Persons being Gods - Father, Son, Holy Ghost, and 97 of earthly people who has achieved perfect unity in Will with the Father with perfect knowledge - does not contradict ONE GOD.

Basically - the number of persons in that Godhead does not make multiple Gods.  They still constitute One God.

So, can we be Gods (capital G.  Small g is not God, e.g. Baal is a small g god)?  YES.  IF you achieve perfect unity of WILL with the Father after gaining perfect knowledge, you will be God - becoming a person in that Godhead.

Make sense?

P.S.  The missionaries do not avoid teaching it.  It is a VERY IMPORTANT RESTORED principle.  It is even taught in the Gospel Principles class.  The problem though is, it is very difficult for an investigator, especially one with a Trinitarian background to understand the concept of Persons other than The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in that One God when they see the Oneness of God as a specific species that is not the same as us humans.  So, they concentrate the discussion on understanding what makes God a God even as God is the exact same species us us humans instead of humans becoming God.

Edited January 3, 2017 by anatess2

[Bad Karma]

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

Is that better now?

Yes. 

[Bad Karma]

49 minutes ago, pam said:

If the personal attacks do not stop on this thread, it will be closed.

Ok

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

So, this is kind of a threadjack, but . . . 

MoE has been on self-imposed hiatus lately, but he has been a forum member since 2008--longer than me, I think.  He is an active Mormon, though his approach to doctrine and especially culture can be very unorthodox.  But I'm confident that if I were moving into his community, MoE would be there with a truck to help; if my kid needed a blessing at 2 a.m., MoE would be one of the few who would answer his phone; if my wife were sick, MoE's wife would be there with a casserole; and if an elders' quorum instructor no-showed, MoE would be able to scrape together a very passable lesson on five minutes' notice.

Now, MoE's a big boy; and is perfectly capable of defending himself.  But I'm using him as an example of a broader trend on the forum.  We get a lot of trolls and antis here, and over time forum regulars--myself included--develop a sort of "spidey sense" that (we think) helps us distinguish between those who are sincere questioners and those who--well--aren't.  But I wonder whether, of late, we haven't been overly vigilant and a little too rough on those who don't appear to toe the doctrinal line.  We used to have a number of generally-polite, kind, and believing folks who were nevertheless somewhat "out of the box" thinkers when it came to theology or politics. We disagreed, we argued, we even bickered--but we also assumed good faith, we shared good news, we got together for dinners.  Two of our members even met in real life and wound up getting married.

Speaking personally, and not as a mod--I think MormonHub is at its best when that's the dynamic that we are consciously trying to create and preserve.  And I think it's a dynamic that has been unfortunately absent from this and some other threads lately as we start perceiving those who think differently as flies in our ointment that must be mercilessly smashed.   And whether for that reason or others--a lot of those less-orthodox-but-fundamentally-good people, don't come around here anymore. 

Frankly, I have probably been part of the problem; especially on politically-oriented threads.  I'd like to invite you guys to hold me accountable in 2017 as I try to be a little less judgmental and a little more charitable in my dealings here.

/rant

I thought for a while there you're talking about @MormonGator.  I perceive him to be just like how you described MOE!

You and I have had quite a pow-wow on the politically-oriented threads.  I do love you and value your posts.  And yes, I've probably been part of the problem too.  This election cycle was very important to my homeland that if my government would have been brave enough to hack the DNC, they would have probably tried it themselves.  I've found myself taking things a lot more personal in this election cycle (worldwide) than in previous ones where I was just some dudette exercising her civic duty.  So yeah, more kindness and charity is definitely something I can improve on.

 

Edited January 3, 2017 by anatess2

[Traveler]

On ‎12‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 1:39 PM, Zarahemla said:

The idea of exaltation is wonderful that we get to return to live with God and Jesus and our family forever, but D&C 132 says that we can become actual gods. Does that ever seen too good to be true and have modern prophets and apostles backed off from this teaching so not as to weird out converts? The first commandment given to Moses was to not have any other Gods and one Bible verse says something like there are no other gods than me, but if we believe in becoming gods then there must be countless numbers of them, even before Heavenly Father, our God. Does it seem too good to be true, or is it a very real reality that the missionaries just avoid teaching and the prophets have avoided saying the word gods in General Conference. Does that make us believe in multiple and many gods? Do you want to be one?

Anyone that desires something other than becoming a g-d will achieve that which they value more for themselves.  G-d will not and does not force anyone to do what which in their heart they do not desire.

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

17 hours ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Can you please explain why Mormonism isn't henotheisitc?

16 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

The fact that we consider the three to be distinct beings alone would qualify Mormonism as henotheistic. Speculation of other gods, etc are irrelevant at that point. 

Here is the proper background for the word "henotheism".

HOW THE DICTIONARY CAN SOMETIMES CAUSE CONFUSION.

First, we need to agree that a dictionary definition is a very brief and very limited definition.  It has to be due to space considerations.  The nuances, the connotations, the "feel" of the word is not found in the dictionary.  The real meaning of the word uses the dictionary definition as a skeleton and common usage is what fills in the flesh of said definition.

One issue with a word like henotheism is that "common usage" simply doesn't exist.  It is used primarily by theologians and similar experts who study these kinds of things.  So, when we use such terms to pigeon hole anyone, we need to know the full fleshed out meaning, not a skeleton.  Otherwise you start putting feathers on a lizard and you get velociraptors in Jurassic Park.

POLYTHEISM

We're all familiar with polytheism.  There is a god of the sky, the god of the sea, the god of the underworld, the "god of" whatever.  This defines gods "of" something.  Together they form a pantheon which covers everything (apparently not finance - Studio C reference or maybe SNL).  If you want something done with the harvest, you need to pray to Demeter.  If you want someone to fall in love with you, you need to pray to Aphrodite, etc.  Even if a city was built to worship one particular god, some in the city might choose to pray and offer sacrifices to many gods depending on their needs.

HENOTHEISM

But to define a "form of polytheism" where there was no god "of" is not quite the same thing.  So, the term henotheism was born.  There are simply supernatural beings -- many of them.  All could be considered equally valid, just pick and choose.  You could worship Jahweh one year and worship Belial the next.  It made no difference.  A god was a god.  Go worship.

MONOLATRISM

Monolatrism differs from henotheism by stating there is a superior god and he/she is whom you worship.  Other gods may exist but it is not proper to worship them because they are inferior.  So, they must be excluded from worship.  While Belial is a real god, you should only worship Jahweh because he is the most powerful.  

GODHEAD

Quote

...the very moment anyone singles out one member of the Godhead as the almost sole recipient of his devotion, to the exclusion of the others, that is the moment when spiritual instability begins to replace sense and reason.

...

 Perfect prayer is addressed to the Father, in the name of the Son; and it is uttered by the power of the Holy Ghost

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_relationship-lord/

We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.  We worship them all together as one.  We do not exclude any of them from our worship.  We don't switch loyalties based on where we live.  We cannot pick and choose.  There is only one real and valid god.  Anyone else worshiping anything else is invalid, wrong, and even perverted.  We do not acknowledge the existence of other gods that are not part of the Godhead.

We're different from henotheists because we don't believe they are all equal.  In fact, we believe others not in our worship to be false.  We don't pick and choose.

We're different from monolatrists because we include the Son and the Holy Ghost in our worship.  And there is no divided loyalty.  We don't need to divide our loyalties because they are all united in all things.

Quote

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 Cor 8:6

If anything, we're closer to monolatrism than we are to henotheism based on the history.  When ancient Israel went from henotheism, to monolatrism, to true monotheism

From heno to monolat - they eschewed Baal and clung to Jahweh alone with the understanding that there were many others "less worthy" gods.

From monolat to monotheism, they converted these other gods to angels.  Here, I'm afraid secular history diverges from religious history.  We believe the "conversion" of gods to angels was not real.  But that the reality of angels came to be revealed.  Perhaps it was the only way that they could understand what was happening to their worship.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Guest

[anatess2]

On 12/30/2016 at 6:21 PM, Vort said:

bytebear, your statement was:

This is untrue. God is indeed a person. I don't need to specify "God the Father". "God" suffices.

If I may.

We start with the statement - There are 3 persons in one God.

In that context, God is a title that represents the State of Being that is God.

 

Then we go with this statement - God is indeed a person.

Correct.  There are 3 persons in one God.  We use the word God in this context to refer to the Person that is God (The Father) rather than the State of Being that is God.

 

[Traveler]

21 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

If I may.

We start with the statement - There are 3 persons in one God.

In that context, God is a title that represents the State of Being that is God.

 

Then we go with this statement - God is indeed a person.

Correct.  There are 3 persons in one God.  We use the word God in this context to refer to the Person that is God (The Father) rather than the State of Being that is God.

 

 

There is a problem – the legal definition of a person is not even close to what many think is a person.  For example a corporation is legally a person.  So Exxon Mobil with it hundreds of thousands of employees and board of directors – is a person.  Not a human person but a legal person under the law.

The ancient Hebrew reference of one G-d used the word ehad to describe what we translate as one G-d.  Ehad is also used to describe a man and a woman being “one” flesh.  In ancient Hebrew when talking about one person or individual being – the word was “yhead”.  Yhead is never used – ever – anciently to refer to G-d.

Also G-d is an ancient term that referred to the supreme Suzerain of a Kingdom.  Recognizing G-d as our Suzerain would identify us as legal citizens of the kingdom over which G-d resides.  So if we say there is but one G-d – we recognize the right of G-d to legally rule the kingdom of G-d.  Now lets look at an ancient context when at the trial of Jesus – the Jews said, “we have no king but Cesar” – Really???? Who then was king Hared?  He certainly was not Cesar – but he was appointed king by Cesar.

Because Jesus and the Holy Ghost are appointed G-d by G-d the Father they are all considered the same legal G-d even though there is only one supreme Suzerain.  The confusion comes when we attempt to translate something from ancient culture to something that does not exist in our current culture.

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

41 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

There is a problem – the legal definition of a person is not even close to what many think is a person.  For example a corporation is legally a person.  So Exxon Mobil with it hundreds of thousands of employees and board of directors – is a person.  Not a human person but a legal person under the law.

The ancient Hebrew reference of one G-d used the word ehad to describe what we translate as one G-d.  Ehad is also used to describe a man and a woman being “one” flesh.  In ancient Hebrew when talking about one person or individual being – the word was “yhead”.  Yhead is never used – ever – anciently to refer to G-d.

Also G-d is an ancient term that referred to the supreme Suzerain of a Kingdom.  Recognizing G-d as our Suzerain would identify us as legal citizens of the kingdom over which G-d resides.  So if we say there is but one G-d – we recognize the right of G-d to legally rule the kingdom of G-d.  Now lets look at an ancient context when at the trial of Jesus – the Jews said, “we have no king but Cesar” – Really???? Who then was king Hared?  He certainly was not Cesar – but he was appointed king by Cesar.

Because Jesus and the Holy Ghost are appointed G-d by G-d the Father they are all considered the same legal G-d even though there is only one supreme Suzerain.  The confusion comes when we attempt to translate something from ancient culture to something that does not exist in our current culture.

 

The Traveler

Completely irrelevant to the usage of the word God that Vort and Bytebear were discussing.

And no, you don't get to be appointed God.  You attain it.  The confusion comes when people make it more complicated than it is... like introducing terms such as LEGAL God.

[Traveler]

17 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Completely irrelevant to the usage of the word God that Vort and Bytebear were discussing.

And no, you don't get to be appointed God.  You attain it.  The confusion comes when people make it more complicated than it is... like introducing terms such as LEGAL God.

 

If you define irrelivant as something intended to be incomplete then I would agree.  But it is my belief that when describing G-d that if something is true - it is never irrelivant.

But I have a question?  How can you attain something that is never appointed to you?  In your mind - are you thinking there is no possible overlap in attaining a right or position and receiving an apointment.  Is a Bishop apointed or does he attain the position or calling?  I ask this to better understand what you mean by the words you select.

 

The Traveler

Edited January 4, 2017 by Traveler

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

If you define irrelivant as something intended to be incomplete then I would agree.  But it is my belief that when describing G-d that if something is true - it is never irrelivant.

But I have a question?  How can you attain something that is never appointed to you?  In your mind - are you thinking there is no possible overlap in attaining a right or position and receiving an apointment.  Is a Bishop apointed or does he attain the position or calling?  I ask this to better understand what you mean by the words you select.

 

The Traveler

Irrelevant as in - it has no bearing on the discussion between bytebear and Vort.

A Bishop is appointed.  You can be as righteous as a bishop, yet you don't get to be one.  Therein lies the difference.

Edited January 4, 2017 by anatess2