Becoming like God


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

I watched this video, which is linked on site: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oofLW2eunGo

First, this seems to be intelligently done, and open-minded traditionalists will find it a reasoned presentation. The author "Saints unscripted" mentioned the couplet by Lorenzo Snow, and suggested that the first part--that God was once like us is not explained, nor mentioned much in LDS teaching. Since little is known little is said. Traditionalists are often told that LDS believe that God is mutable and that he was once a man. Is this an overstatement? One other questions from the video--the mention of the polytheism accusation. The author says that nothing is known of any other potential gods out there, and nothing will ever be known--if they exist they are irrelevant. Is that an accurate description of LDS teaching? The video does well at describing the traditionalist struggle with the seeming closing of the gap between God's nature and ours. His use of C.S. Lewis is exceptional, as well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Here is a good article on our Church website:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/becoming-like-god?lang=eng

More recent lesson manuals do still include statements on our divine nature.  Here is one from the Teachings of John Taylor:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-john-taylor/chapter-1?lang=eng

In one point of view, man appears very poor, weak, and imbecile, and very insignificant: in another point of view, he appears wise, intelligent, strong, honorable, and exalted. It is just in the way that you look at a man that you are led to form your opinions concerning him. In one respect, he appears, as it were, as the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven. He is changeable in his opinions, in his thoughts, reflections, and actions. He is idle, vain, and visionary, without being governed by any correct principle. He comes into existence, as it were, like a butterfly, flutters around for a little while, dies, and is no more.

In another point of view, we look at him as emanating from the Gods—as a God in embryo—as an eternal being who had an existence before he came here, and who will exist after his mortal remains are mingled and associated with dust, from whence he came, and from whence he will be resurrected and partake of that happiness for which he is destined, or receive the reward of his evil deeds, according to circumstances. …

… What is [man]? He had his being in the eternal worlds; he existed before he came here. He is not only the son of man, but he is the son of God also. He is a God in embryo, and possesses within him a spark of that eternal flame which was struck from the blaze of God’s eternal fire in the eternal world, and is placed here upon the earth that he may possess true intelligence, true light, true knowledge,—that he may know himself—that he may know God—that he may know something about what he was before he came here—that he may know something about what he is destined to enjoy in the eternal worlds.

God in embryo is the statement used here and in some other sources.  As to exactly what that means, people have interpeted things differently.  Some (especially in the past) have interpeted this as that we will progress past the embryo stage, while some say that we will have just an embryo type of godliness.

Quote

Traditionalists are often told that LDS believe that God is mutable and that he was once a man. Is this an overstatement? 

Some early church leaders did say something to that effect, but it become less emphasized in more recent years.  I don't know of any official canonized doctrine that is definitive on the matter.  

Quote

 The author says that nothing is known of any other potential gods out there, and nothing will ever be known--if they exist they are irrelevant. Is that an accurate description of LDS teaching?

The part about nothing will ever be known is not accurate. 

Doctrine and Covenants 121 is official doctrine and canon:

26 God shall give unto you knowledge by his Holy Spirit, yea, by the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, that has not been revealed since the world was until now;

27 Which our forefathers have awaited with anxious expectation to be revealed in the last times, which their minds were pointed to by the angels, as held in reserve for the fulness of their glory;

28 A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest.

Verse 28 is interesting.

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I watched this video, which is linked on site: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oofLW2eunGo

First, this seems to be intelligently done, and open-minded traditionalists will find it a reasoned presentation. The author "Saints unscripted" mentioned the couplet by Lorenzo Snow, and suggested that the first part--that God was once like us is not explained, nor mentioned much in LDS teaching. Since little is known little is said. Traditionalists are often told that LDS believe that God is mutable and that he was once a man. Is this an overstatement? One other questions from the video--the mention of the polytheism accusation. The author says that nothing is known of any other potential gods out there, and nothing will ever be known--if they exist they are irrelevant. Is that an accurate description of LDS teaching? The video does well at describing the traditionalist struggle with the seeming closing of the gap between God's nature and ours. His use of C.S. Lewis is exceptional, as well.

I don't think it is an overstatement so much as a simplification (e.g. what does it really mean to be a man?) for the purposes of having a working model for the plan of salvation and a particle of knowledge for the sake of exercising a particle of faith. The more forward-envisioning  our faith, the more it encompasses the past (and present).

Similarly, what does it really mean to be a god? The Gospel is a Covenant, and so there are bounds and conditions that define the path of discipleship in God's kingdom and united discipleship on that path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As mentioned already the part about God once being like us is never fully explained. It is said Jesus became like man and while that is true in some aspects he was not completely like us and yet his is a God. So to say God our Father was once a fallible man cannot be assumed. We simply do not know.

But that does not take away from man's potential as sons and daughters of God. If there is one thing this world God created teaches us is that like begets like. That truth coupled with our belief that we are the literal spirit children of God leads us to only one conclusion. This is why following the apostasy man's understanding of the true nature of God was so thoroughly corrupted by Satan. You turn God into a completely incomprehensible being and our true relationship with Him is lost and with that our aspirations to become like Him. Sadly much of the Christian world still operates under those corrupted notions.

From a practical standpoint when we consider how good some people become in this brief existence called mortality in the midst of a fallen and depraved world all the while under the influence of Satan and then you take that person and give them literally FOREVER to improve in the presence and grace of God, what right do we have to place limits on a person's potential in eternity? To me this doctrine of becoming like our Father in Heaven is the most logical doctrine of all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a funny topic. It’s something that has been spoke on by early church leaders and is, as far as I understand, doctrine. But one thing that needs to be understood is that none of that matters if we don’t have faith, hope, Charity, and other Christlike attributes.

The only times this really comes up in conversation at church is when crazy brother jones who is 85 and can’t hear anyone decides to grace us with his knowledge of God’s origin.

The closest thing we have to “canonized” doctrine is the “Kingfollet Sermon” which was once published in our magazine, a quote from Lorenzo snow that was published by the church in a book about him, and odd mentions of it here and there in random institute manuals.

It isn’t a core doctrine nor is it important to understand for salvation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, laronius said:

So to say God our Father was once a fallible man cannot be assumed

It is spoken of by quite a few leaders. Explicitly by Truman g Madsen in one of his discourses on Joseph Smith.

We don’t know everything about it, but to say we “cannot” assume it is a gross overstatement.

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I watched this video, which is linked on site: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oofLW2eunGo

There's already several good replies on here, but I'll chime in too.

8 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

The author "Saints unscripted" mentioned the couplet by Lorenzo Snow, and suggested that the first part--that God was once like us is not explained, nor mentioned much in LDS teaching. Since little is known little is said.

That is entirely accurate.  In fact you could go a decade of attending church and never even hear about it (unless of course you have one of those 85 year old "crazy Brother Jones").  Very little is said, and frankly very little is known to even say.  There's a whole 2 speculative quotes of any substance on the subject (the Lorenzo Snow couplet, and the King Follet Discourse), neither of which are explained both of which in context actually focus on another subject (the glorification possible in man's future).   It's simply more logical to focus on what's important and known.  

8 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Traditionalists are often told that LDS believe that God is mutable and that he was once a man. Is this an overstatement?

Extremely. 

Reality is that this a very minor, speculative, seldom talk abouted subject, doesn't say anything about mutability, and zero of those speculations are what a Creedal Christian would think of. 

8 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

One other questions from the video--the mention of the polytheism accusation. The author says that nothing is known of any other potential gods out there, and nothing will ever be known--if they exist they are irrelevant. Is that an accurate description of LDS teaching?

There's only one God.  We work with three divine persons in that one God: Father, Son, Spirit.  They are one through unity.    There's also Heavenly Mother, whom we know little about.

Besides that, we know zilch about any other divine persons.   Any speculation on that front is entirely speculation and completely irrelevant.   

8 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

The video does well at describing the traditionalist struggle with the seeming closing of the gap between God's nature and ours. His use of C.S. Lewis is exceptional, as well.

I actually find that subject to be the most important here, and do acknowledge the difficulty Creedal Christians have in understanding the LDS perspective.  LDS Christians likewise struggle to understand the Creedal perspective.   These are deep subjects that are hard to explain, and influence our thinking more than a person a realizes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fether said:

It is spoken of by quite a few leaders. Explicitly by Truman g Madsen in one of his discourses on Joseph Smith.

We don’t know everything about it, but to say we “cannot” assume it is a gross overstatement.

If I remember correctly those comments were about God having performed the role of Savior at some previous point. If that is the case he would not have been a fallible man. But my main point is that we don't have all the details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, laronius said:

If I remember correctly those comments were about God having performed the role of Savior at some previous point. If that is the case he would not have been a fallible man. But my main point is that we don't have all the details.

You are right, I think I misunderstood what you were saying. I get it now. 

 

11 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

@Jane_Doe mentioned Heavenly Mother. I understand that not much is known of Her, but is She believed to be included in the Godhead? Also, will the exalted faithful eventually join it?

I can step in if you would like.

The core belief is that we are literal children of God and that we can one day be like him. With that comes quite a few assumptions. None of this is really said explicitly in church doctrine but has been accepted as reality.

Heavenly Mother is not included in the God Head as we understand it. Heavenly Mother is an exalted being like heavenly father and she too likely had an earthly experience much like us at some point in "history" (if there is such a thing in heaven).

On the topic of polytheism. Based on the core doctrine that we can become like God and many different comments made by church leaders, we (I use 'we' loosely) ASSUME there are other G/gods out there doing their own "rounds of creation" (as I have heard it called before). We are polytheistic only in the sense that we don't deny the existence of other gods through assumptions based on core beliefs we hold. We do, however, deny the existence of other Gods (note the capitalization of 'G'). If there are other heavenly parents out there, we do not care for them for they are not our parents and their dealings have less to do with our salvation than my current high score on Mario Kart.

NOTE: I would also point out that in a mature and literal discussion, calling us polytheistic is like calling us or any protestant church a "cult". By definition, yes we can claim that to an extent. But when taken out of a mature dialogue, the baggage the claim carries doesn't work.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

@Jane_Doe mentioned Heavenly Mother. I understand that not much is known of Her, but is She believed to be included in the Godhead? 

We don't know much about Heavenly Mother right now.  She's not listed with the Godhead, though one could work through logic certain ways.  Honestly, it's a topic I look forward to learning more about in the eternities.

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

Also, will the exalted faithful eventually join it?

On the eventual day when a disciple of Christ fully becomes a joint heir with Him, then they will obviously be fully joint heirs -- divine just as much as Him.  All together as one God.  

That does not mean the Father won't still be your Father- that never changes.  Or the Savior still your Savior.  Those relationships never change, but we do become perfect even as He is.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fether said:

NOTE: I would also point out that in a mature and literal discussion, calling us polytheistic is like calling us or any protestant church a "cult". By definition, yes we can claim that to an extent. But when taken out of a mature dialogue, the baggage the claim carries doesn't work.

I've come to understand the mature conversation--especially within the church--has been over whether LDS theology is monotheistic or henotheistic. Some insist that since veneration of the Godhead remains exclusive, there is no multi-god worship. Others have allowed for the term henotheist (meaning that one God is worshipped while others gods may exist). From my outside perspective, you are correct that the term polytheist is just too accusatory to be useful. Further, the line between monotheism and henotheism, as it relates to the LDS Godhead becomes largely one of definition. It's enough to admit that the Godhead has 3 distinct personages vs. the three-in-one Trinity, with its 3 persons-one essential being. It's further enough that traditionalists know we can become godlike vs. the LDS teaching that exalted beings will be actual gods. These lines seem less than what some of the debates would suggest. Of course, they are still substantial. Then there's Heavenly Mother. Some have compared her appeal to that of Catholicism's veneration of Mary as a human without "original sin."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

That does not mean the Father won't still be your Father- that never changes.  Or the Savior still your Savior.  Those relationships never change, but we do become perfect even as He is.  

Perhaps the change in relationship will be as when our children become adults. They are still our kids, but we transition from directors to coaches. (Yeah, 2 daughters in college, one a junior in high school).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, prisonchaplain said:

Perhaps the change in relationship will be as when our children become adults. They are still our kids, but we transition from directors to coaches. (Yeah, 2 daughters in college, one a junior in high school).

Honestly, I very much see it that way.  My mom is still my mom - despite the fact that I'm all grown up and a mother myself.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Then there's Heavenly Mother. Some have compared her appeal to that of Catholicism's veneration of Mary as a human without "original sin."

I get the temptation to make this comparison, but ... it doesn't really work.  Yes, they are both female and both mothers, but that's really the end of the comparison.  They're two very different people, play two very different roles in the different faiths, etc.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, sure. @anatess2 would be the real expert on this. However, I know that Catholics venerate Mary (not worship, but more than honor). Only Mary and Jesus were human and without sin. I suspect that many people, just on an intuitive level, are attracted to the idea of religion honoring the female half of creation in a special way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If my decision to follow God was a carefully calculated decision, then one of the things I would like to know and take into account when making that calculation was the possible end results of each of the possible options. Its almost always helpful to know whether the reward is worth the effort, and ideally, to know this before deciding whether or not to make any effort. To this end, it therefore serves a useful purpose to know that a possible end result and final outcome of a decision to follow God is to actually become like Him. I suspect that few, if any people, make such a calculation in this life when choosing whether or not to follow God but such calculations may have gone on in the pre-existence when we were choosing between alternatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you would like a good read pertaining to Lorenzo Snow's couplet, "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be," this is a good article to gather more information. In this article I find Joseph Smith's words confirming:

Quote

"Soon after his return from England, in January, 1843, Lorenzo Snow related to the Prophet Joseph Smith his experience in Elder Sherwood’s home. This was in a confidential interview in Nauvoo. The Prophet’s reply was: ‘Brother Snow, that is a true gospel doctrine, and it is a revelation from God to you.’” (LeRoi C. Snow, Improvement Era, June 1919, p. 656.)

I will admit, this is s second hand witness from the son of Lorenzo Snow specifying what Joseph Smith said. Personally, I take the couplet to be accurate and doctrinal. There are two possible meanings to the couplet as has been shared:

1> The couplet explains a divine truth pertaining to God the Father and God the Son.

2> The couplet only pertains to Christ (who indeed was a man (flesh and blood), that can't be argued)

The second is without question. We know Christ was born of Mary, a virgin. We know he grew up according to the grace of God (which is most interesting because in our Bible Dictionary the term grace is defined as Christ's bounteous love and mercy). Whose/what "grace" then did our Savior wax strong by? In that light, it lends thought toward #1. The grace our Savior experienced was his Father's.

However, pertaining to #1, Gordon B. Hinckley answered this correctly on live TV. When asked about the Father his response was something to this nature, "There isn't much said about the Father." This is accurate, and as has been said there is no official statement currently from the Church; although, a person only needs to have the Spirit and by the Spirit the truth of ALL THINGS can be known.

As pertaining to other Gods, I am not sure why this potential doctrine has been threatening/hedonistic to mainstream Christians/Catholics. The gospel of Jesus Christ is best understood when we look through at the most basic unit of our human societies -- family. In our families there is a father and a mother, and without a father and a mother's seed and ovum there can be no offspring. Offspring are made in the image and likeness of their parents, after their own kind. Parents often have multiple children. These children grow up and become fathers/mothers. Do my uncles somehow deny the existence of my father, or in any way lessen who my father is? No. If we are the offspring of deity, which our Spirits are, then what does this say about our divine potential, and how does a son becoming a father threaten his father? It doesn't, unless of course you are Cronus.

Mutable is an intriguing word to use when pertaining to God. There are members on this forum who would say without a doubt that God is mutable. The most common statement of a mutable God is when I hear members say, "The God of the Old Testament is not the same God who gave us the New Testament." I have even heard mainstream Christians use this same theology/belief. The God of the Old Testament was harsh, strict, mean, jealous, but the God of the New Testament is merciful, loving, changing (they are not the same God). Yet, scripture is clear, there is no shadow of changing with God -- immutable. People appear to forget how merciful and loving God was actually in the Old Testament (i.e. Joseph in Egypt who spared Israel and many other stories). And that same God will come again with fire, previously it was a flood.

Pertaining to God being mutable again would be in what is being described. God, Jesus Christ, was born and had  body of flesh and blood. After his death our Savior appeared with a body of flesh and bone, not blood. In that essence, yes, God is mutable or he at one point changed from one state (physical) to another state (spiritual). That again can't be argued, unless a person wants to deny scripture that is written in plainness.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to Mono vs Polytheism, we also have to take in historical context.  Typically when one thinks polytheism one thinks of Egyptian, Greek or Roman Gods.  These groups all had one thing in common, the God's fight each other.  There are stories where a mortal would do something to anger one God but gain the protection of an other.  Monotheism did away with this conflict/Godswar.  The easiest way to understand how there can be no conflict is simply being one. 

Jews and Christians were and are Monotheistic.  But we run into a problem with the most literal interpretation of Monotheism  when we deal with Christ.  The Jew killed Christ because of his claims to be the Son of God and thus keep the literal interpretation.  Christian's embrace  the declaration, but then have to call upon the unity or "Oneness" of the Father and the Son to maintain Monotheistic status the Father and Christ are never in conflict.

Many Christian use the Trinity model of God being of one substance.  This works but it can be hard to explain.  The LDS faith uses the model Christ gave the apostles as the model of the Godhead itself.  He told the apostles to be one and warned them if they were not one they were not his.  Thus our model is not one of substance but of heart, intent, and action.

This allows God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost to be different people while being one God.  This also leaves the door open to others joining and being a part even though the others are not called out.  Because the ones called out have a direct role to play in our salvation.  In order to be a part they have to be one in heart, mind, intent, and action... Thus no conflict between them.

This is the door that logically puts Heavenly Mother in the Godhead without explicit call out.  Husbands and Wives are to be One.  Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother  clearly must be one. But then we run into cases were people using that logic to try praying to Heavenly Mother.  This is highly illogical.  Using logic to claim the Godhood of Heavenly Mother but then defying that very logic in praying to her.  She is and must be One God.  And we have been very clearly instructed  by God to pray to the Father in the Name of Christ.  This is how we avoid the potential conflict of polytheistic many Gods.  Thus Heavenly Mother would be the first on to shut down any attempts to pray to her.   Having said that God is merciful to us in our weakness, and misunderstandings, they are less merciful to willful rebellion.

It is also the path to Exaltation... when we become one with Christ, we are also one with the Father and whoever else is also One with them.  But anyone else who is One like Heavenly Mother no matter how long ago they might have gained that status would by the Nature of being One fully support the Plan of the Father like Christ does.  Thus no conflict, no Godswar, no end running the plan of the Father by trying to appeal to someone else.  It is simply not possible. 

Edited by estradling75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I've come to understand the mature conversation--especially within the church--has been over whether LDS theology is monotheistic or henotheistic. Some insist that since veneration of the Godhead remains exclusive, there is no multi-god worship. Others have allowed for the term henotheist (meaning that one God is worshipped while others gods may exist). From my outside perspective, you are correct that the term polytheist is just too accusatory to be useful. Further, the line between monotheism and henotheism, as it relates to the LDS Godhead becomes largely one of definition. It's enough to admit that the Godhead has 3 distinct personages vs. the three-in-one Trinity, with its 3 persons-one essential being. It's further enough that traditionalists know we can become godlike vs. the LDS teaching that exalted beings will be actual gods. These lines seem less than what some of the debates would suggest. Of course, they are still substantial. Then there's Heavenly Mother. Some have compared her appeal to that of Catholicism's veneration of Mary as a human without "original sin."


As I have considered this thread (and you and I have already discussed several points concerning if the trinity is polytheistic).  I thought to take this discussion in a very different direction - using the Gospel of John and looking at Chapter 10.  Before I begin there are many religious notions that have evolved since Jesus walked as a man among men in what we call the "Holy Land".  As we consider the record of John - lets keep in mind not just the things that were said but what was understood at the time of what was said.  And so we begin with Jesus speaking to the Jews of his day:

Quote

30 I and my Father are one. 

When we talk about one G-d and being one with G-d are we talking about different things?  What was Jesus teaching? And how was it understood when he said it?

Quote

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

What did Jesus say and how was it understood?  Jesus said that he and the Father are one.  The Jews understood this to mean that to be one with G-d meant that you are a G-d and they clearly said this is why they were going to stone Jesus - because he was teaching that a man (like himself) is one with G-d or a G-d.    It is important that we understand what is happening  - and in addition that Jesus is not stupid or that he did not understand what they were accusing him of telling them.  So now lets look are how Jesus answered them:

Quote

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son pf God?

What I find is odd is that when this scripture is pointed out to non-LDS like yourself - almost always that say that Jesus was not really talking about g-d but Judges.   Obviously this is a false understanding of what was going on - Jesus was about to be killed and it was not because the Jews thought he was talking about judges and him being a judge.

Now we continue in John to chapter 17 where Jesus is at a critical point of his purpose of coming into the world and becoming a man that is capable of death:

Quote

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

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

And so now we see the doctrine of Jesus Christ and I ask - is his doctrine monotheistic or polytheistic?  What does it mean to be one with G-d?  Were the Jews wrong in understanding this to mean that a man becomes a G-d when they become one?

Many times I have posted that the proper term for singularity of G-d is yhead.  But that Hebrew term is never used in scripture in reference to "one" G-d.  The term used is "ehad" which is the same word used to describe a man and a woman as "one" through the covenant of marriage.  When we speak of one G-d in scripture we are speaking of unity not singularity. 

The last point I would make is that there are two responses to this concept of unity - of man being one with G-d through becoming a G-d.  The first response is the example of Jesus - the other response is the example of the Jews that would kill the teacher of it rather than believe.  And so my question to all - which are you?

It there is any other possibility - I would love to consider the scripture and revelation from which the other possibility comes.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/29/2020 at 8:36 AM, Fether said:

The only times this really comes up in conversation at church is when crazy brother jones who is 85 and can’t hear anyone decides to grace us with his knowledge of God’s origin.

 

On 8/29/2020 at 9:44 AM, Jane_Doe said:

  In fact you could go a decade of attending church and never even hear about it (unless of course you have one of those 85 year old "crazy Brother Jones"). 

Hey now...I'm old, but not quite 85 yet.  That's still a few years off.  😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

When it comes to Mono vs Polytheism, we also have to take in historical context.  Typically when one thinks polytheism one thinks of Egyptian, Greek or Roman Gods.  These groups all had one thing in common, the God's fight each other.  There are stories where a mortal would do something to anger one God but gain the protection of an other.  Monotheism did away with this conflict/Godswar.  The easiest way to understand how there can be no conflict is simply being one. 

Jews and Christians were and are Monotheistic.  But we run into a problem with the most literal interpretation of Monotheism  when we deal with Christ.  The Jew killed Christ because of his claims to be the Son of God and thus keep the literal interpretation.  Christian's embrace  the declaration, but then have to call upon the unity or "Oneness" of the Father and the Son to maintain Monotheistic status the Father and Christ are never in conflict.

Many Christian use the Trinity model of God being of one substance.  This works but it can be hard to explain.  The LDS faith uses the model Christ gave the apostles as the model of the Godhead itself.  He told the apostles to be one and warned them if they were not one they were not his.  Thus our model is not one of substance but of heart, intent, and action.

This allows God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost to be different people while being one God.  This also leaves the door open to others joining and being a part even though the others are not called out.  Because the ones called out have a direct role to play in our salvation.  In order to be a part they have to be one in heart, mind, intent, and action... Thus no conflict between them.

This is the door that logically puts Heavenly Mother in the Godhead without explicit call out.  Husbands and Wives are to be One.  Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother  clearly must be one. But then we run into cases were people using that logic to try praying to Heavenly Mother.  This is highly illogical.  Using logic to claim the Godhood of Heavenly Mother but then defying that very logic in praying to her.  She is and must be One God.  And we have been very clearly instructed  by God to pray to the Father in the Name of Christ.  This is how we avoid the potential conflict of polytheistic many Gods.  Thus Heavenly Mother would be the first on to shut down any attempts to pray to her.   Having said that God is merciful to us in our weakness, and misunderstandings, they are less merciful to willful rebellion.

It is also the path to Exaltation... when we become one with Christ, we are also one with the Father and whoever else is also One with them.  But anyone else who is One like Heavenly Mother no matter how long ago they might have gained that status would by the Nature of being One fully support the Plan of the Father like Christ does.  Thus no conflict, no Godswar, no end running the plan of the Father by trying to appeal to someone else.  It is simply not possible. 

One of the interesting things is in theory, Christiandom...IF THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE in the Bible, have a belief in a plurality of deity rather than just one.  In many portions of the Bible (and this is also, probably how the confusion over the Savior also literally being the Father, even though he is also a distinct individual of his own, ala the trinity, because in portions his name is used interchangeably with this) the wording used is the PLURAL form, rather than singular when discussing deity.

There are various explanations for this.  Many translations these days, rather than using a correct plural form, simply change it to using a singular form in the English language.  In fact, a majority of the popular translations (including the KJV used by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) do this.  However, when looking at it, the way it's been translated has integrated different words to mean the same thing (thus a plurality of deity vs. the singular form vs. the one we call the Savior prior to him coming to the world...as well as who he talks to...etc...etc..etc).  In essence, because we've conglomerated several terms into one term, most English translations are incorrect and conveying what many of the verses actually say.

This makes understanding some of the things in the Bible hard for many English speakers to understand.  Understanding who or what the Bible is discussing in regards to deity can be harder for those who look at the various words and spellings and make sense of it (and thus we get everything from scholars talking about the origins of the Judaic religions being founded upon Babylonian mythos and a deity of a pantheon of deities being their chief diety..etc). 

Thus, there is a LOT of speculation among scholars.  I find this also applies to those who study such things in our religion, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day  Saints.  With that overly long explanation, thus, is my speculation.

The idea that our Heavenly Father was once a man, who trembled and worked out his salvation as we find in the King Follett Sermon is absolutely correct.  We may not understand everything or all there is about it, but it shows the divine purpose and design of man.  As our Father is, we can also become.

When discussing plurality I think there was a Heavenly Council of which all of those who were related to our Father discussed the plan of salvation and how they could become more like our Father.  At that council we discussed not just the atonement, but the creation of the worlds and the things there in, and it is this same council that, under the direction of God, created all there is in the order of Heaven, as it was planned.

Thus, God created all there is, but we also helped as we did as he directed (much like other denominations would understand angels to do as God directs and also have power to do things).  He is God and supreme, but we are his children and have great nobility and strength within us.  We can be more like him if we choose, or fall from that nobility by choosing darkness instead of the light.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

When we talk about one G-d and being one with G-d are we talking about different things?  What was Jesus teaching? And how was it understood when he said it?   What did Jesus say and how was it understood? 

PC: I agree that Jesus was declaring a oneness with God that meant He had to be God. He doubled-down on this notion when his accusers asked how such a young man could claim to be greater than Abraham, and Jesus responded, "Before Abraham was I am." (The same "I am" found in Ex. 3:14, btw).

What I find is odd is that when this scripture is pointed out to non-LDS like yourself - almost always that say that Jesus was not really talking about g-d but Judges.   Obviously this is a false understanding of what was going on - Jesus was about to be killed and it was not because the Jews thought he was talking about judges and him being a judge.

PC: I do suspect that Jesus was being sarcastic. If you can call your judges gods why can't I--who is one with the Father--who existed before Abraham--be God?

And so now we see the doctrine of Jesus Christ and I ask - is his doctrine monotheistic or polytheistic?  What does it mean to be one with G-d?  Were the Jews wrong in understanding this to mean that a man becomes a G-d when they become one?

PC: As often happens in these discussions, one doctrine intermingles with another. In this case, pre-mortal existence is crucial to understand. Traditionalists, like myself, who believe that our existence began with our conception, almost have to believe that when Jesus said we could be one with God as He is meant something other than co-eternal essential unity. LDS could much more easily believe that the unity is the same, since the Church teaches that we are eternally existent beings. I can meet half way--there is an aspect of us which is eternal, even for traditionalists, since we must have been in God's thoughts eternally. He knew He would make us, so we already existed in that sense.

Can we all not agree that this really is a fascinating discussion? Those who believe eternity will be boring are truly clueless!

 

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: the subject topic

"Becoming like God" is the underlying theme of the entire Bible. Ancients worshiped gods that typically had only marginal overlap with human beings. The gods didn't take much notice of human problems, and when they did, it was mostly for their own entertainment. You curried the favor of your chosen gods by doing this or that act of worship to, in essence, flatter the god into granting you some beneficial token. But in general, it was better to keep your head down and not really raise the gods' notice of you, because that would make you the peg sticking up, waiting to be hammered down.

The Hebrew God Yahweh was different. This God actually felt human emotions, including love, devotion, and faithfulness. This God expected his followers to emulate him, to take his characteristics upon themselves. In reality, Yahweh the Hebrew God didn't have human emotions; rather, humans potentially had the emotions of Yahweh. The Israelites were the chosen people of Yahweh, chosen to worship him by emulation. Yahweh was indeed the mighty God who upheld the nations and held their fate in his hands, but he was also the loving groom who, though his foolish bride might err and even be unfaithful, yet he would welcome her back if she repented and utterly turned away from her filth and wickedness. I don't think the pagan gods were quite so forgiving.

Jesus (who was himself literally Yahweh) took this idea to its logical conclusion. He taught of a God who was not only a terrifying being who demanded utter fidelity and whose mighty hand destroyed the wicked, but who was also a loving, caring Father in heaven, solicitous even of his erring children. The Father in heaven was a personal God, not just to Jesus but to all, even to the Gentile nations. Jesus himself would bring us to the Father, whose perfection Jesus' disciples were commanded to emulate (Matt. 5:48).

The fundamental LDS teaching that man is to become as God is does not break new ground for any true Christian. In the Bible, Christ taught that he was to inherit all that the Father has, and that we were to be co-heirs with him of the Father's fulness. That the Latter-day Saints might take Jesus' words more literally at face value than do most other Bible-believing Christians does not substantially set us apart from them. If they believe in the Bible, then they already believe that we are to acquire God's fundamental characteristics in perfection and that we are to inherit with Christ all that the Father hath. That's just exactly what we believe. So the differences in that specific doctrine between Latter-day Saints and non-LDS Christians have been greatly exaggerated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share