Becoming Gods? Is this true?

[Dr T]

Hi Hemidakota,

So are you saying there is a greater and more perfect being than God? If you are saying that then your god is not the greatest, the utmost-or in otherwords not-God (in my belief). That's what I'm saying, God is God not a substandard anything. There is NOTHING greater than Him (all praises to Him!) He did not develop/grow into his state-he just was. "I AM." :)

[Hemidakota]

Quoting from President George Q. Canon:

Now, with this information children can begin to understand something about their Heavenly Father. They can see that if Jesus is His Son, and we are His sons and daughters, that He must be the Son of some other personage, for He could not beget Himself, but must have a father even as He is our Father. (Sept. 11, 1869, JI 4:148) (George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of President George Q. Cannon, selected, arranged, and edited by Jerreld L. Newquist, p.101-)

Patternization is the key to the answer Doctor T; if one should fail by faith to look across the rented veil for ‘five-minutes’. We have parents, they have parents, and they have parents…so on. Our FATHER has a father. Is HE greater than our FATHER? To answer that bluntly, it would be a ‘yes.’ Same as the Savior has a father and His Father is greater than He. This doctrine is nothing knew to this world.

Let me not make any form of distraction as to our love and affinity with our Heavenly parents. HE is our salvation and means for eternal life. I for one, have a enormous unfathomable affection for HIM and HIS only begotten Son. I do look forward to day soon, in embracing my Heavenly parents and will weep in their loving arms, as a lost son who has return home. I will also weep in the presence of the one who my eldest brother – the Savior. For He has been my closet friend, exemplar for my life, and a hero in mortality.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Why is it so hard to accept that God can be almighty and perfect and yet still have an almighty and perfect father? I have a father. My father has a father. Just because I have a grandfather that doesn't mean that his son, my father, is not an adult.

[Dr T]

Thanks for your thoughts Hemidakota. Based on what you laid out I don't believe in the same god you do. My God does not come from a succession of other beings. Like I said, He is dependent on nothing/no one. The logical impossibility of trasngressing an infinite is also a major problem that I have with that idea.

===

WtW,

I understand what you've been taught and I understand the anthropomorphic idea of growth and roles that you outlined. The issue that I was addressing was the idea that there are greater and more powerful gods above the god you worship. My God is the greatest there is, again, because there are no other real gods to speak of. Sure there are many false gods but not, God. That also does not have to do with "The only god that I have anything to do..." If there are other gods greater than him, why does he not pass on the glory? How is it that someone that needed to develop is worthy of glory? If there was once a time that he was not perfect, "all whatever" then he was at one time not perfect unless there's an explanation that does not violate the law of noncontradiction.

[Hemidakota]

Actually, I was not taught this knowledge as if I was a member in a Gospel Principle class. Something I come to learn by asking.

[Dr T]

A Gospel Principe class actually sounds fun to me. In any case, it seems that in your question's responses, you were taught Hemi.

[Hemidakota]

In my response for those questions, adding [just a tad] more clarity to the term 'heavenly parents' as taught by manual. That is about all you are going to hear from the instructors lips. The rest has to be filled in by revelation. Some of which, the world is not ready [not promoting a pompous attitude here –pointing out something].

ADDED CLARITY: Sometimes I can be direct in pointing something out but I have a purpose. I do apologize. If I could add some insight that may have some commonality in what I am alluding too, even Remote Viewers [LDS ones assigned] seen the beginning that may shake there own testimony.

[Dr T]

I did not take your post as pompous in any way sir. Just as you were sharing your thoughts I wanted to share mine. I did not intend to come off rude in any way. If I did, I apologize.

[a-train]

Doesn't the notion the God has no Father suffer from the same 'logical impossibility of traversing an infinite' as does the notion of God having a Father?

I'm trying to see the difference here.

-a-train

[Dear434]

Psalms 82:6

John 10:34

As you can see, especially in the book of John, if you read chapter 10, the Jews were about to stone Christ for claiming Deity (v. 30). He rebuked them by quoting the law, saying they themselves were gods. The Jews were hard hearted and unbelieving and could not accept what He told them. They couldn't see the forest for the trees.

All mankind are children of God and therefore heirs to His kingdom. For this reason we are exhorted to become perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect.

Matthew 5:48

Of course that's the LDS interpretation of John and Psalms. Of course, Biblical interpretation (exegesis) is a funny thing. I can give you the correct interpretation and you'd claim it was just my own personal interpretation (eisegesis). But whether you accept it or not, I believe it is true. The so-called "gods" referred to in both Psalm and the gospel of John are referring to human judges. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, mere mortal MEN. Not true Gods in any sense of the word. Jesus was not calling these Jewish scribes and pharisees "gods" or "Gods". Rather, he was comparing their own unjust judgments (against Him) with the unjust judges spoken of in Psalms. If they were truly "Gods" or "gods" then how could they "die like men"? The phrase "die like men" is a simple idiom meaning they would die just like any other man (great or small). Apparently sarcasm and other rhetorical devices are lost on some people when read and not heard.

[Dear434]

Yes, but those judges were children of God as were the Jews who wanted to stone Christ. Those Jews were not judges but as all mankind were called gods by Christ. As I said before, we have a prophet today as the people did in the Bible, led by revelation.

Christian teachers rely on the bible as far as it is translated correctly to teach the gospel of Christ whereas we rely on a living prophet who receives revelation concerning the Lord's people and all of man in today's world.

Christ did NOT call all mankind "gods". Perhaps you could quote the actual chapter and verse where Christ allegedly does this.

[Dr T]

Hi Train

It is different because one is a logical impossibility (transgressing an infinite cause we could never get to today) while the other is not necessarily impossible. Please outline a God existing from all time and eternity is an impossibility and I'll see where you're getting the similarity between the two. Thanks, c u all in a few days.

[Elgama]

Of course that's the LDS interpretation of John and Psalms. Of course, Biblical interpretation (exegesis) is a funny thing. I can give you the correct interpretation and you'd claim it was just my own personal interpretation (eisegesis). But whether you accept it or not, I believe it is true. The so-called "gods" referred to in both Psalm and the gospel of John are referring to human judges. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, mere mortal MEN. Not true Gods in any sense of the word. Jesus was not calling these Jewish scribes and pharisees "gods" or "Gods". Rather, he was comparing their own unjust judgments (against Him) with the unjust judges spoken of in Psalms. If they were truly "Gods" or "gods" then how could they "die like men"? The phrase "die like men" is a simple idiom meaning they would die just like any other man (great or small). Apparently sarcasm and other rhetorical devices are lost on some people when read and not heard.

well actually if you are LDS it becomes prophecy and Gods interpretation

-Charley

[Dear434]

No disrespect taken. I don't believe that what I have told you goes against the bible. For the very reason that we have differing interpretations of scripture are prophets and apostles necessary as was in the Bible. We have to proceed on the assumption that it is translated correctly and unmodified by scribes and clergymen through time.

For this reason did the Lord prepare another testament to come forth as the Book of Mormon. If this book is true, then Joseph Smith, who translated it (only one translation) was indeed called of God to restore His church with apostles and prophets to lead the church as they did in the times of the Bible. Our entire faith hinges on these facts. That is the challenge that we issue to the world and our evangelical mission to share that message.

That's an interesting assumption. WHY? Why must we ASSUME that Joseph Smith is a "prophet" if he translated the Book of Mormon? What if his only gift and calling was to translated the Book of Mormon and that's it? Why the need to leap from "translator" to "prophet," "see," and "revelator"?

[Dear434]

It is a belief that has been taught by some of the worlds great thinkers:

C.S Lewis

Sanatayana

Feuerbach

William Ellery Channing

Theodore Parker

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Margaret Fuller

Ralph Cudworth

Catherine of Genoa

etc

Before them can the medieval thinkers and theologians, like

Thomas Aquinas

Pseudo-Dionysius

Maximus the Confessor

etc

Before them came the early Patristic or Church Fathers. The doctrine was taught by most everyone:

St. Augustine

Appollinaris

Gregory of Nazianus

Basil of Caesaria

Athanasius

Origen

Clement of Alexandria

Irenaeus

...and on and on and on.

Where did they get it from?

From the Bible, both the New and Old Testament

None of the above mentioned men taught the LDS concept of Eternal Progression. Can a Mormon become a "god" by him or herself? Or, must they obtain a celestial marriage? None of the men referred to above taught any such thing. So, did they refer to "gods" or becoming like Christ? I'm sure they did, but I have no doubt that the LDS concept of becoming a god was entirely foreign to them just as it is foreign to the Bible.

[Elgama]

That's an interesting assumption. WHY? Why must we ASSUME that Joseph Smith is a "prophet" if he translated the Book of Mormon? What if his only gift and calling was to translated the Book of Mormon and that's it? Why the need to leap from "translator" to "prophet," "see," and "revelator"?

his calling was to restore the Church the translation of the Book of Mormon was part of that.

-Charley

[Dear434]

Your reaction is common. The thing you have to see past, is being a literal spirit child of our Father in Heaven, rather than just a creation. We have a potential to be just like our Father in Heaven, just as Romans 8:16, 17 states.

Our teachings do not go against what the Bible says, it just goes counter to how you read and interpret the Bible.

As your mortal father is your father, and will always be your father, even tho you grow up and become a father yourself, so will G_d be our G_d, and will always be our G_d.

We will be the first to state that our teachings are different from mainstream Christianity, but we will also tell you they are restored truths.

Paul (in Romans 8) is speaking about our (Christians) adoption as children of God (the Father). It says nothing of our becoming "gods" or becoming deified as taught by Mormon theology.

[Dear434]

I really hope this won't turn into a Bible bashing session. I just wanted to point out that there are many different interpretations of many Biblical verses.

What does it mean to you in Genesis 3:22?

22 ¶ And the Lord God asaid, Behold, the bman is become as one of cus, to dknow good and eevil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

I understand if you don't agree with our beliefs, but it bothers me when others insist we accept their Biblical interpretations.

Just as it bothers us when Mormons insist we accept their interpretations as being equally valid. Simply because Adam and Eve became "like God" (knowing the difference between good and evil) does not mean they became Gods. Is God mortal or immortal? When Adam and Eve transgressed God's commandments and were cast from the Garden of Eden, were they "gods" or simply mortal human beings?

[Dear434]

I'm not aware that any of these people taught that men could become Gods and have spirit-children that will later become Gods when they get physical bodies.

In fact, one website I read states that the concept isn't even found in the Book of Mormon.

That is correct. The Book of Mormon does NOT teach the LDS concept of eternal progression. As a matter of fact, it is even more strictly monotheistic than Trinitarianism (some might call it Modalism).

[Dear434]

Many instances can be found in the Old Testament which apply the epithet "gods" to men. In the Old Testament, the most prominent reference for the Christian doctrine of deification ia Psalm 82:6 (LXX 81:6). The verses seem to apply to judges who represented God despite their mortality (cf. vss. 1 and 7), but the the phrase, 'Εγω ειπα, θεοι εστε by Jesus in John 10:34–36 clearly calls for a much broader interpretation. The early Church always understood Psalm 81:6 as asserting that men were originally created as gods and meant to occupy that rank, until the Fall brought on sin and mortality. Thus Christ's mission was to help fulfill their true destiny. See Benz, Ernst. "Der Ubermensch-Begriff in der Theologie der alten Kirche." TU 77 (1961): p147, Norman, Keith E. "Deification: The Content of Anthansian Soteriology p6.

That's one unorthodox interpretation. But the truth is Jews have NEVER interpreted Psalms to mean these judges were true "Gods" in the same way God is the "only true God".

[a-train]

Hi Train

It is different because one is a logical impossibility (transgressing an infinite cause we could never get to today) while the other is not necessarily impossible. Please outline a God existing from all time and eternity is an impossibility and I'll see where you're getting the similarity between the two. Thanks, c u all in a few days.

hmmm... OK, maybe you are seeing something I don't see.

First, I imagine God having always existed and having never had any parents or childhood experience. At some point, God created the earth and we came to this point in time. Wouldn't He have traversed infinity simply to cross His endless existance before creating earth?

Next, I imagine God having always existed but also having once had parents and a childhood experience. At some point, God created the earth and we came to this point in time. I still see God traversing infinity to cross His endless existance before creating earth.

As far as I can tell, the addition or deletion of God's parents do not somehow change the situation.

Do you see what I am asking? Perhaps you mean something else by 'transgressing an infinite'?

-a-train

[Dear434]

Your awareness not withstanding, they all believed and taught the principle or doctrine of theosis. A few examples:

Justin the Martyr said in 150 A.D. that he wishes:

to prove to you that the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons... in the beginning men were made like God, free from suffering and death, and that they are thus deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest...

Also,

[by Psalm 82] it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming “gods,” and even of having power to become sons of the Highest.[Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 124.]

Augustine, one of the greatest Christian Fathers, said:

but He himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying He makes sons of God. For He has given them power to become the sons of God, (John 1:12). If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.[Augustine, On the Psalms, 50:2.]

Clement, of Alexandria taught the doctrine of deification:

yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.[Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks, 1.]

And:

...if one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God...His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus was right when he said, "Men are gods, and gods are men."[Clement of Alexandria, Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 3.1 see also Clement, Stromateis, 23]

Those who have been perfected are given their reward and their honors. They have done with their purification, they have done with the rest of their service, though it be a holy service, with the holy; now they become pure in heart, and because of their close intimacy with the Lord there awaits them a restoration to eternal contemplation; and they have received the title of "gods" since they are destined to be enthroned with the other "gods" who are ranked next below the savior.[Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers: A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius (London: Oxford University Press, 1956), 243–244. ISBN 0192830090.; Stromata 7:10 (55–56).]

I don't believe Clement of Alexandria was saying we can become "gods" in the way Mormons teach this doctrine of eternal progression. Where in any of his writings does he say anything about celestial marriages and that a man cannot become a "god" without this type of marriage? None of the early Church Fathers taught that we (humans) are of the same species as God. The early Church Fathers were Monotheistic and given this fact, I seriously doubt they would be teaching a plurality of gods (similar to Greek mythology).

[Dear434]

Exactly my point. He overlooked or ignored my other points, though. I recognize the difference between nit-pickers and sincere investigators.

The bottom line is what we believe is founded on revelation of our modern day prophets and not "Christian teachers", which could be compared to the Jewish scholars who knew the law, but did not understand the law.

If we had lived in Christ's time or before, we'd have other prophets like, ironic to this topic, Malachi, who's purpose was to correct the lax religious and social behavior of the Israelites at the time. He told the people of their wrong doings (robbing God by not paying their tithes, priests not teaching well, divorce, etc).

Each prophet had a different message for the people in their particular time. Moses led the Isrealites out of Egypt, received the 10 commandments, the law of Moses, etc. Noah warned people to repent lest they be wiped out, and so on. Our prophets of today receive revelation pertaining to our times and our circumstances, including further revelations about the doctrine of salvation and exaltation. The warnings of our day include things like debt/living within our means, food storage/emergency preparedness, pornography, etc.)

Christian teachers of other faiths have only the Bible as far as it is translated correctly to interpret the definition of Christianity, teach basic gospel principles like baptism, but do not have the authority to baptize unto salvation, or to act in God's name, etc. I could go on...

What is it that Mormons accuse anti-Mormons of doing? Taking quotes from LDS authorities out of context or twisting the meaning of certain words? I think it would be nice if certain Mormons would refrain from doing that very thing (like with the ECF's quotes). It's one thing to say "this is what we believe" and then quote LDS sources and quite another to quote from the early Christian Fathers (whom Mormons consider apostate) to justify their beliefs.

[Dear434]

I don't know about you but for me, this spells it out plainly for me.

Romans 8

14 For as many as are aled by the bSpirit of God, they are the csons of God.

15 For ye have not received the spirit of abondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of badoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

16 The Spirit itself beareth awitness with our bspirit, that we are the cchildren of God:

17 And if children, then heirs; aheirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we bsuffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Romans 8 is talking about us being adopted as children of God and we call Him "Abba Father". If it were true, that we are already His children (by some pre-mortal spirit birth) then there would be no need to be adopted. Even if you believe we were disowned for some reason, adoption would be unnecessary for a child that is by nature the offspring from their own parents.

[Dear434]

The pre=existence is referred to in the Bible so how can other churches deny it?

Job 38:7, Jer 1:5, John 9:2, Eph 1:4, Rev 12:7 to name a few.

Job 38:7 is talking about the angels. Jer 1:5 is simply showing God's fore-knowledge and that He is all-knowing. John 9:2, in context, is simply a misunderstanding the disciples had, believing the man was born blind because of sin. When in fact, the man was born blind because it was God's will (v. 3). Just because the disciples asked a question in ignorance doesn't mean the question validates the belief in the LDS premortal existence. Eph. 1:4 again speaks of God's foreknowledge. Verse 5 says He "predestined us to adoption as sons". Does this mean Mormons believe in predestination since it uses that explicit word? And finally, Rev 12:7 is speaking of the war in heaven between the angels and the devil (the dragon). Again, you would have to read into the text something which is NOT there to come up with the LDS interpretation.