Becoming Gods? Is this true?

[Dr T]

yes :)

[THIRDpersonviewer]

They have been in existence from before the world was. Another word for "create" would be organized or established. Abraham 3:22-25, Moses 3:5.

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;

23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

We were intelligences before we were organized into spirits. From this understanding, intelligences were from before our grasp of infinity. We cannot comprehend what originated, because it hasn't been given to us other than these scriptures(as far as I am aware, which isn't too much). So, to us intelligences are a self-existing principle of a certain degree of knowledge, or light.

Matter is present, but has to be organized. So it was with this Earth, so it is with all things. In this sphere or realm, Jesus, under authority from God the Father, organized with the other noble and great ones this Earth. They took of already existing material that was "without form or void" and upon the "waters" of space. This material exists by nature of it's self, as far as we know.(because their existence goes before our comprehension)

The first creation was light. That means certain Laws and certain truths and certain knowledges were established in this realm of creation. These Laws are ones necessary for the progress of man. So not the Laws that govern how Spirit children are created. That is just speculation. The Laws are given in the Scriptures and in the covenants(which I have not entered into all of). We do not need to know how they are created(because we cannot comprehend). We just need to know that they were established and that they exist. What their existence means in the eternal scheme of things.

[Dr T]

Any other biblical support would be helpful to me. Thank you

[THIRDpersonviewer]

For the record, the core base is the Godhead. If one does not have an understanding of the nature and kind of being God is, than he cannot progress to become like God. To become His heir and a joint-heir with Christ and all others who attain that glory.

If one does not know who God the Father is, they cannot progress in the spiritual realm. This is the first fundamental principle learned, before all others.

Not intelligences and matter, though they do have an important place. Just not now, because for us they have been done. We have moved past those phases in our progression.

This is also why we cannot judge the placement of truths for this reason. They are subject to the interpretations of men.

However all truths sum up to five letters. God Is.

From that truth we progress. So the first would be, what is His nature and kind of being.

[Dr T]

Train,

I typed this in another thread so I copied it and posted it here (it can be read here http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/3832-time-magazine-article.html)

“Philosophical arguments for the impossibility of transversing an actual infinite series of events has long stood as a logical conclusion. I don’t know how familiar you all are with philosophical writings but starting back with Aristotle, we see that he ruled out an infinite progression of causes. We can also read other philosophers that come to the same conclusion. Thomas Aquinas for example offered similar arguments using ideas of the first mover, first cause, the sustainer, etc.

Here is a sample of this pattern:

1. there exists a series of events

2. the series of events exists as caused and not as uncaused (necessary)

3. there must exist the necessary being that is the cause of all contingent beings

4. there must exist the necessary being that is the cause of the whole series of beings

Aquinas’ Argument from Motion is easy to understand and starts with this observation: “Of the things we observe, all things have been placed in motion. No thing has placed itself in motion.” Working from the assumption that if a thing is in motion then it has been caused to be in motion by another thing, Aquinas notes that an infinite chain of things-in-motion and things-causing-things-to-be-in-motion cannot be correct. If an infinite chain or regression existed among things-in-motion and things-causing-things-to-be-in-motion then we could not account for the motion we observe. If we move backwards from the things we observe in motion to their cause, and then to that cause of motion within those things that caused motion, and so on, then we could continuing moving backwards ad infinitum.

My intro to philosophy professor taught that it would be like trying to count all of the points in a line, moving from point B to point A. We would never get to point A. Yet point A must exist as we know there is a line segment. Similarly, if the cause-and-effect chain did not have a starting point then we could not account for the motion we observe around us. Since there is motion, the cause and effect chain (accounting for motion) must have had a starting point.

The cause and effect relationship here must have a starting point. At one point in time, the events were set in motion. Thus, there must be a First Cause, which set all other things in motion. This is known as the cosmological argument.

What else can we know about the First Cause? The first cause must have been uncaused. If it were caused by another thing, then we have not resolved the problem of the infinite regression. So, in order to account for the motion that we observe, it is necessary to posit a beginning to the cause and effect relationship underlying the observed motion. It is also necessary to claim that the First Cause has not been caused by some other thing. It is not set in motion by another entity. This is the only logical way to explain this series of events.

If your interested, you can also read Clarke’s “Argument from Contingency”:

1. Every being that exists is either contingent or necessary.

2. Not every being can be contingent.

3. Therefore, there exists a necessary being on which the contingent beings depend.

4. A necessary being, on which all contingent things depend, is what is taken as “God”.

Basically, my problem here is a logic issue. It is a logically impossibility to transverse an actual infinite and still experience today. We would never be able to get to today. But the problem is-there is a today. Anyway, I hope that makes sense.

[a-train]

Dr. T.,

Thanks for all of that. I am somewhat familiar with it. I am at least familiar with the philosophy itself. Now help me apply this to our conversation.

To avoid confusion, let us first apply all of this to Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus is the 'Necessary Being' upon which all others are 'contingent'. He is uncreated, eternal, necessary, the 'First Cause'. He is God.

At the very same time we are saying this, it is no contradiction or dishonor to say that He was born of woman over 2000 years ago in Palestine and lived on this earth as a man in every way. He was ultimately crucified and died. He was subsequently resurrected and ascended to heaven.

Does this demonstrate my issue? I am trying to see if and/or why his birth to Mary, His childhood, His manhood, His death and resurrection pose any logical trouble concerning His status as the 'First Cause'.

-a-train

[Dr T]

I do not see it causing a problem sir. As you said, He is eternal, He is part of the one and only true God, God in three persons, Holy Trinity. Him taking on human form, being born, life, death and resurrection or his human nature does not impact the idea of having a god before him and more gods after him, on and on, in a series for eternity like I do have trouble with.

[rameumptom]

Dr T,

And while we believe in three separate beings in a Godhead, we believe that the Godhead is eternal as a God in unity. In this way, Jesus may come to earth as fully divine and fully human, as LDS belief is they are of one substance, rather than the dualism taught at Chalcedon.

We have LDS that believe that God the Father is from all eternity God the Father, and others that believe God the Father has a Father. Either way, there is one Godhead - or divine council, in which there are eternal Gods included.

Next, what does philosophy have to do with the Trinity? The Trinity is described as incomprehensible and unknowable. There is an illogic to describing it, to the point that most "Trinitarian" lay people actually believe in modalism.

While it seems logical to have an uncaused First Cause, what does that mean? What happened before the Big Bang? The rules of all physics and logic break down prior to the Big Bang, so we cannot guess what occurred before it. And does Eternal for God mean the same thing as Eternal for us? If one goes billions of years into the past to the Big Bang (or the beginning of time), is that not an eternity?

There are ways for LDS to also explain the First Cause. Now, I accept you do not agree with that. No problem. But it is as with the Godhead vs Trinity, there are reasonings for both, some logical and others classified as mysteries.

IMO, the more important issue isn't whether there were Gods before God, or whether God is a Trinity or a Godhead; but whether we are following in Christ's footsteps to be like Him. And I think we can all agree on that. Jesus did not spend his time trying to teach how many angels dance on the head of a pin. He taught us to love God with all our heart, might, mind and strength, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. All of the commandments lead to these two commandments, which are for us to enter into a loving relationship with God and man.

And I know we can all agree on that.

[a-train]

I do not see it causing a problem sir. As you said, He is eternal, He is part of the one and only true God, God in three persons, Holy Trinity. Him taking on human form, being born, life, death and resurrection or his human nature does not impact the idea of having a god before him and more gods after him, on and on, in a series for eternity like I do have trouble with.

Exactly. It does NOT cause any problem. The same Eternal God who created the earth was born of the Virgin Mary and lived on the earth.

Now I am trying to see the 'traversing an infinite' issue you mentioned. Some have made the assertion that our LORD, being Infinite in His existance would first have to pass through infinity to arrive at the present. This, they say, would be impossible because the endlessness of the task by definition would not allow God to arrive at the current time.

The answer offered up by Joseph Smith is that God does not traverse infinitely through time, but is omnipresent therein. A mind boggling consideration, it is still one that offers some level of explanation and is perhaps no less brain bending than the implications of trinitarianism.

I'd like to see your take on the issue. What do you say to the doubter who says: 'God could not have ever arrived at the present because He had to traverse infinity to arrive here.'?

-a-train

[Dr T]

Thanks for your thoughts Ram. I spent a lot of time drafting a reply to your thoughts and as I neared the end I inadvertantly closed the window and lost it all. I don't want to start all over tonight so I'll wait to reply to your post later. Next time it will be much shorter (grrr-frustration).

===

Train,

I'll address you post later also. Sorry for the delay to the both of u.

[Dr T]

Dr T,

And while we believe in three separate beings in a Godhead, we believe that the Godhead is eternal as a God in unity. In this way, Jesus may come to earth as fully divine and fully human, as LDS belief is they are of one substance, rather than the dualism taught at Chalcedon.

We have LDS that believe that God the Father is from all eternity God the Father, and others that believe God the Father has a Father. Either way, there is one Godhead - or divine council, in which there are eternal Gods included.

Next, what does philosophy have to do with the Trinity? The Trinity is described as incomprehensible and unknowable. There is an illogic to describing it, to the point that most "Trinitarian" lay people actually believe in modalism.

While it seems logical to have an uncaused First Cause, what does that mean? What happened before the Big Bang? The rules of all physics and logic break down prior to the Big Bang, so we cannot guess what occurred before it. And does Eternal for God mean the same thing as Eternal for us? If one goes billions of years into the past to the Big Bang (or the beginning of time), is that not an eternity?

There are ways for LDS to also explain the First Cause. Now, I accept you do not agree with that. No problem. But it is as with the Godhead vs Trinity, there are reasonings for both, some logical and others classified as mysteries.

IMO, the more important issue isn't whether there were Gods before God, or whether God is a Trinity or a Godhead; but whether we are following in Christ's footsteps to be like Him. And I think we can all agree on that. Jesus did not spend his time trying to teach how many angels dance on the head of a pin. He taught us to love God with all our heart, might, mind and strength, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. All of the commandments lead to these two commandments, which are for us to enter into a loving relationship with God and man.

And I know we can all agree on that.

Hi Ram,

You said, "We have LDS that believe that God the Father is from all eternity God the Father, and others that believe God the Father has a Father." OK, so which one is the official LDS position?

You also said, "There is an illogic to describing it, to the point that most "Trinitarian" lay people actually believe in modalism." I disagree with your assertion that "most Trinitarian lay people actually believe in modalism" please provide a reference for that claim. As I said in that thread I liked to above, I am not a professional philosopher or theologian and I am sure there are people much better able to reason these things but I'm having fun talking about these thoughts. From my experience, limited as it is, I'd say that I've found that bible believing Christians deny modalism as heresy not as holders of that to describe the trinity. Please point out the illogical aspects of the Trinity as you understanding them. When I first heard of the Trinity concept, I had a hard time wrestling with it too. Please let me know where they contradiction is and we can talk about it/them. Maybe you can start another thread laying out your thoughts. I understand there are "mysteries" when we talk about God, I mean he is, after all, GOD! (respect and honor to His majesty!) Jesus gave a great answer when questioned about the commandments. :) That's all for now.

Finally, you said, "

While it seems logical to have an uncaused First Cause, what does that mean? What happened before the Big Bang? The rules of all physics and logic break down prior to the Big Bang, so we cannot guess what occurred before it. And does Eternal for God mean the same thing as Eternal for us? If one goes billions of years into the past to the Big Bang (or the beginning of time), is that not an eternity?"

I understand that physics breaks down at the big bang. I'm not too sure if logic does too. Where would you say it does not apply? (I'm starting to think you're right but I'd like to hear your thoughts on how you justify that thought.) When I say God is eternal, I'm not talking about two points in a line that can be divided infinitely in half upon half, etc. I'm talking about the concept of unboundedness, "without end," etc. We have passed through finite amounts of time that have passed and the idea that the infinite time that passed was preceded by other beings that produced offspring that continued the same pattern over and over, ad infinitum, like addressed above, does not allow up to get to today. Anyway, that is my ramblings for tonight. Thank you

[Dr T]

Oh man, it happened again, A-Train. I wrote a reply then tried to spell check it/down load spell check and it was lost. GRRRR. I'll try again later.

[rameumptom]

Hi Ram,

You said, "We have LDS that believe that God the Father is from all eternity God the Father, and others that believe God the Father has a Father." OK, so which one is the official LDS position?

You also said, "There is an illogic to describing it, to the point that most "Trinitarian" lay people actually believe in modalism." I disagree with your assertion that "most Trinitarian lay people actually believe in modalism" please provide a reference for that claim. As I said in that thread I liked to above, I am not a professional philosopher or theologian and I am sure there are people much better able to reason these things but I'm having fun talking about these thoughts. From my experience, limited as it is, I'd say that I've found that bible believing Christians deny modalism as heresy not as holders of that to describe the trinity. Please point out the illogical aspects of the Trinity as you understanding them. When I first heard of the Trinity concept, I had a hard time wrestling with it too. Please let me know where they contradiction is and we can talk about it/them. Maybe you can start another thread laying out your thoughts. I understand there are "mysteries" when we talk about God, I mean he is, after all, GOD! (respect and honor to His majesty!) Jesus gave a great answer when questioned about the commandments. :) That's all for now.

RAM: Perhaps I overstated when I said, "most". Perhaps I should have said many Trinitarians understand the Trinity in a modalist form. In my view, LDS believe in a social Trinity, and much of what is in both the Nicene and Athanasian creeds can be very acceptable to LDS, with some exceptions or definition changes.

I understand that physics breaks down at the big bang. I'm not too sure if logic does too. Where would you say it does not apply? (I'm starting to think you're right but I'd like to hear your thoughts on how you justify that thought.) When I say God is eternal, I'm not talking about two points in a line that can be divided infinitely in half upon half, etc. I'm talking about the concept of unboundedness, "without end," etc. We have passed through finite amounts of time that have passed and the idea that the infinite time that passed was preceded by other beings that produced offspring that continued the same pattern over and over, ad infinitum, like addressed above, does not allow up to get to today. Anyway, that is my ramblings for tonight. Thank you

RAM: We cannot determine what happened before the Big Bang, if anything indeed occurred. Since physics are based on logic (science is based on logic), then we don't have a logical system that precedes the Big Bang. If God precedes the Big Bang (and I think he probably does), we do not know the logic he used in any previous form of the universe (if there was one).

President Hinckley was asked in a tv interview about God having a Father. He stated that we do not know much about it, that some things were stated concerning it, but little had been revealed. Some LDS do not accept it. There is a difference between teachings and doctrines in the LDS Church. Doctrine is well-defined and articulated, taught in our curriculum and in General Conference talks. The last talk in General Conference to reference the KFD was in 1969, as the Church has since backed off from speculation in Gen Conf, and in our manuals. Pres Packer has the Church focusing on the actual doctrines today.

Some LDS scholars are skeptical concerning God having a Father. I've discussed it with some of them on email over the last few years. Personally, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other, since I'm only concerned with God the Father and my relationship with him. For me, he is the First Cause.

As for eternities going backward, I cannot fathom a 15 billion year old universe, much less an eternity of yesteryears. 15 billion years seems an eternity to me. When we try to go past the Big Bang, I think we are trying to count the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin: a futile exercise, since you can always squeeze in one more angel.

[Snow]

RAM: We cannot determine what happened before the Big Bang, if anything indeed occurred. Since physics are based on logic (science is based on logic), then we don't have a logical system that precedes the Big Bang. If God precedes the Big Bang (and I think he probably does), we do not know the logic he used in any previous form of the universe (if there was one).

Er, that doesn't really correspond to the theory of the Big Bang... before which, there was no before - time not being an applicable concept in the absence of time-space which proceeded from the Big Bang.

[rameumptom]

Er, that doesn't really correspond to the theory of the Big Bang... before which, there was no before - time not being an applicable concept in the absence of time-space which proceeded from the Big Bang.

At least time as we know it breaks down. And so with time-space logic goes the logic that we understand. We do not know what was before the Big Bang, if there was a before. And that was part of my point. If God preceded the Big Bang, then it means he is outside OUR universe's time, but not necessarily outside his own time. Could be there are other universes he is involved with, as well as our own, eh?

[Guest tomk]

D&C 88: 44, 58, 122

44 And they give light to each other in their times and in their seasons, in their minutes, in their hours, in their days, in their weeks, in their months, in their years—all these are one year with God, but not with man.

4 In answer to the question—Is not the reckoning of God’s time, angel’s time, prophet’s time, and man’s time, according to the planet on which they reside?

5 I answer, Yes. But there are no angels who minister to this earth but those who do belong or have belonged to it.

6 The angels do not reside on a planet like this earth;

7 But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord.

8 The place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim.

9 This earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order, will be manifest to those who dwell on it; and this earth will be Christ’s.

Alma 40: 8

8 Now whether there is more than one time appointed for men to rise it mattereth not; for all do not die at once, and this mattereth not; all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.

[Hemidakota]

To understand the beginning, you need first to understand the Atonement. Seeking this type of answer [What was before this universe?] for some maybe troubling when they finally discovered that answer. Are you really sure you are able to receive such?

Tom, that was not directed just to you.

[rameumptom]

To understand the beginning, you need first to understand the Atonement. Seeking this type of answer [What was before this universe?] for some maybe troubling when they finally discovered that answer. Are you really sure you are able to receive such?

Tom, that was not directed just to you.

Hemi,

Could you be a little more cryptic?

I think the atonement is necessary to understand our purpose in life, but not necessarily the beginning. God's love and his desire to create and expand his creations explains the beginning. Now, if you have a reason for thinking the atonement is the key to the beginning, then I suggest you share it. We can determine for ourselves if it is speculation or good teaching.

[Hemidakota]

I do understand our Heavenly Parental love for HIS progeny; as I do understand the plan of our FATHER for a redeemer to forefill that very plan in order to save HIS creation. As I also understand the creational beginning was not the beginning of humanity. As I now understand the Plan of Atonement, if worked backward in succession to our beginning spelled out in Abraham chapter 3 [D&C 93], gives more clarity of humanity beginnings. Now, who is the greatest story teller ever? When I read Moses genesis of creation, I do see it now in a different light when the greatest story teller reveals a truth when Adam and Eve were created.

There is a 'creational string' connection with the Atonement back to the beginning our humanity, which gives credence to biblical axiom '…demands of justice...' . GOD continues in the same order as it was before HIM.

When I view the universe, I don’t view it within, but I view without. What I do see is an entire different depiction from what notable scholars and science would have you believe. Our last finding with immense hole in space this month is one more illustration of my point.

Now, I sat down with my 12-year old and presented her a paper on what I wanted to convey. Why her? Our family notable intellectual and current thinking is without scholastic prejudicism. She read the paper and came away with series of questions that she felt somewhat, unsettling.

[Hemidakota]

Hemi,

Could you be a little more cryptic?

I think the atonement is necessary to understand our purpose in life, but not necessarily the beginning. God's love and his desire to create and expand his creations explains the beginning. Now, if you have a reason for thinking the atonement is the key to the beginning, then I suggest you share it. We can determine for ourselves if it is speculation or good teaching.

When ever I do learn new topic, I will toy with it, ponder it, studying it out, posed the question to others of notable academic field, and finalize my own answer, asking GOD whether or not, this is the correct answer.

What is return, may not be our finalized proposed answer.

[Hemidakota]

Hemi,

Could you be a little more cryptic?

I think the atonement is necessary to understand our purpose in life, but not necessarily the beginning. God's love and his desire to create and expand his creations explains the beginning. Now, if you have a reason for thinking the atonement is the key to the beginning, then I suggest you share it. We can determine for ourselves if it is speculation or good teaching.

When ever I do learn new subject, I will toy with it, ponder it, studying it, then posed the question to others of notable academic field. Upon what I conceive a finalize answer, ask GOD whether or not, this is the correct answer while waiting upon the Holy Ghost for that confirmation.

What is return, may not be our finalized proposed answer.

[Mullenite]

Godhood: Man's Divine Potential

POINT:

ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCTRINES OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH WAS THAT WE HAVE

THE POTENTIAL TO BECOME LIKE Heavenly FATHER, THAT IS, TO ATTAIN GODHOOD.

SELECTED BIBLE PASSAGES:

Matthew 5:48

Romans 8: 16-17

2 Corinthians 3:18

2 Peter 1:4

John 3:2

Hebrews 12:22-23

Revelation 2:26-27

Psalm 2:9

Revelation 3;21

LDS are blessed to know that we have the potential to become like our Father In Heaven. Just as earthly fathers want their children to enjoy all that they enjoy, so our Heavenly Father desires that his children receive all of the power and knowledge that He has.

The doctrine of man's ability to attain Godhood appears in several place in the NT. Moreover, this teaching ---know as theosis, deification, divinization--

is frequently found throughout the writings of the early church fathers..........

[bert10]

The Story is that we do not become Gods nor are we formed into Gods....for we are already Gods. What we can do however, is lose our inheritance.

We are literal seeds of the Father. And as you know all seeds already contain everything within them that is needed for them to develop alike the the parent of the seed. God has given enough example in nature to prove this.

This bible verse is LITERALLY TRUE.

Psalms 82:6 - I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the Most High.

Children of the Most High have the ability to develop into their parents. Because all seeds have within them the Blue print of the parents which conceived it.

Those who do not wish to be Literal sons of God shall not be forced to live with the Father. If they instead wish the portion of slaves and servants then that is what they shall receive.

They who have been taught of God, and then go on to overcome the world.....are Children of the Most High and shall be inheritors because they shall be Joint Heirs with Christ and shall be glorified together with Him. As the scriptures says.

Romans 8:17 - And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

BTW are you Malachi from CARM?

I hope that I have answered your question adequately. For there is nothing in the bible that Says....Literal Sons of the Father cannot inherit all that the Father has.

All those who are not Sons of the Father as Isaiah stated...cannot become God nor be formed into a God. Because only they who come from what is Eternal can one Day be Called THE ETERNAL as Jesus and the FAther have already this title.

Peace be unto you

bert10

[bert10]

The Story is that we do not become Gods nor are we formed into Gods....for we are already Gods. What we can do however, is lose our inheritance.

We are literal seeds of the Father. And as you know all seeds already contain everything within them that is needed for them to develop alike the the parent of the seed. God has given enough example in nature to prove this.

This bible verse is LITERALLY TRUE.

Psalms 82:6 - I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the Most High.

Children of the Most High have the ability to develop into their parents. Because all seeds have within them the Blue print of the parents which conceived it.

Those who do not wish to be Literal sons of God shall not be forced to live with the Father. If they instead wish the portion of slaves and servants then that is what they shall receive.

They who have been taught of God, and then go on to overcome the world.....are Children of the Most High and shall be inheritors because they shall be Joint Heirs with Christ and shall be glorified together with Him. As the scriptures says.

Romans 8:17 - And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

BTW are you Malachi from CARM?

I hope that I have answered your question adequately. For there is nothing in the bible that Says....Literal Sons of the Father cannot inherit all that the Father has.

All those who are not Sons of the Father as Isaiah stated...cannot become God nor be formed into a God. Because only they who come from what is Eternal can one Day be Called THE ETERNAL as Jesus and the FAther have already this title.

Peace be unto you

bert10

[rameumptom]

I do not think we are all "already Gods." At least, not all of us. I believe that Abraham 3 mentions that only a select group of spirits were among the "noble and great ones", who in Abraham 4 are called Gods in the creation process. Not all spirits were necessarily in this group.

Just as an acorn has potential to be an oak tree, we have potential to be Gods. But potential and being are two different things. There were some who had achieved godhood in the premortal existence, many that came here with potential, and 1/3 that lost their entire inheritance. When and if an acorn becomes the tree depends on many things. Yes, we have a promised inheritance that we can lose, and I agree on that part.

I also believe that most will inherit some of our Father's glory, but not all of it. They shall choose something short of godhood that fits them best, whether in the Celestial, Terrestrial, or Telestial realm.