Heavenly Mother, Exaltation, And The Oneness Of The Godhead

[Rob Bowman]

In his recent blog entry responding to Ben Witherington, Bill Hamblin states that "Mormons believe that the Trinity is of one will." This leads me to ask some questions. I really don't know just how Mormons might answer.

First, where does Heavenly Mother fit into this explanation of the Trinity? I understand that she is not a member of the Godhead according to LDS doctrine. But wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that she, as an exalted being and the wife of Heavenly Father, would be "one will" with Heavenly Father? If so, would not her "oneness" with the Father be the same as the oneness that defines the unity of the Godhead? And if so, why isn't she by definition then a member of the Godhead?

For that matter, I am having trouble putting the following claims together:

1. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost comprise the Godhead.

2. The Godhead is one in the sense that its members are of one will with each other.

3. Exalted humans can never become members of the Godhead.

4. Exalted humans can become one with the Father and the Son, in just the same way as the Father and the Son are one with each other.

Since the Father and the Son are members of the Godhead (from #1), claims #3 and #4 appear to conflict with each other. This apparent incoherence is confirmed by claim #2, since the point of that claim seems to be that humans can attain the same oneness of will with each other and with the Father and the Son that the members of the Godhead have with each other.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

1. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost comprise the Godhead.

2. The Godhead is one in the sense that its members are of one will with each other.

3. Exalted humans can never become members of the Godhead.

4. Exalted humans can become one with the Father and the Son, in just the same way as the Father and the Son are one with each other.

Since the Father and the Son are members of the Godhead (from #1), claims #3 and #4 appear to conflict with each other. This apparent incoherence is confirmed by claim #2, since the point of that claim seems to be that humans can attain the same oneness of will with each other and with the Father and the Son that the members of the Godhead have with each other.

I will give it a rather short and simplistic answer. Being a God doesn't = Godhead. (I know that is not really your argument it just looked like that is what you were saying) I think that might be were the confusion comes from. I think there is more to the Godhead than just having or being one in purpose or one will.

Well let's see were this goes for now.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[shalamabobbi]

I really don't see a challenge here. Let's create a similar statement about a stake presidency and the members of the stake.

1. John, Joe, and Larry comprise the stake presidency.

2. The stake presidency is one in the sense that its members are of one will with each other.

3. Members of the stake cannot become members of the stake presidency.

4. Members of the stake can become one with the stake presidency in just the same way that John, Joe and Larry are one with each other.

Of course being a lay church item 3 is not strictly true but you don't care since we don't get paid..

With respect to heavenly mother add in the wives of the stake presidency as appropriate..

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I really don't see a challenge here. Let's create a similar statement about a stake presidency and the members of the stake.

1. John, Joe, and Larry comprise the stake presidency.

2. The stake presidency is one in the sense that its members are of one will with each other.

3. Members of the stake cannot become members of the stake presidency.

4. Members of the stake can become one with the stake presidency in just the same way that John, Joe and Larry are one with each other.

Of course being a lay church item 3 is not strictly true but you don't care since we don't get paid..

With respect to heavenly mother add in the wives of the stake presidency as appropriate..

I was just thinking of this. What better way to understand it than what you just said.

[jwhitlock]

I'd like to see Rob explain the passages from John 17, where we are to become one with the Father and Son in the same way they are one with each other. That's what poses the real problem for EVs; LDS doctrine concerning the Godhead (as noted above) makes much more sense.

[Bart Burk]

In his recent blog entry responding to Ben Witherington, Bill Hamblin states that "Mormons believe that the Trinity is of one will." This leads me to ask some questions. I really don't know just how Mormons might answer.

First, where does Heavenly Mother fit into this explanation of the Trinity? I understand that she is not a member of the Godhead according to LDS doctrine. But wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that she, as an exalted being and the wife of Heavenly Father, would be "one will" with Heavenly Father? If so, would not her "oneness" with the Father be the same as the oneness that defines the unity of the Godhead? And if so, why isn't she by definition then a member of the Godhead?

For that matter, I am having trouble putting the following claims together:

1. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost comprise the Godhead.

2. The Godhead is one in the sense that its members are of one will with each other.

3. Exalted humans can never become members of the Godhead.

4. Exalted humans can become one with the Father and the Son, in just the same way as the Father and the Son are one with each other.

Since the Father and the Son are members of the Godhead (from #1), claims #3 and #4 appear to conflict with each other. This apparent incoherence is confirmed by claim #2, since the point of that claim seems to be that humans can attain the same oneness of will with each other and with the Father and the Son that the members of the Godhead have with each other.

Perhaps there is a difference between being a God and being a god. If we see God as the ultimate governor of the universe and gods as being governed by God then it makes more sense. And perhaps we could only see Heavenly Mother (if such a person exists) as simply being a god.

[Darren10]

Rob;

My view of Heavenly Mother is that she's there and was part of the creation. What role she had is not known. What her status is not known. By reason I believe there is a Heavenly Mother. The existence of a "mother" gives better understanding as to why we call God "Father" and why He *must be* referred to as "Father". Also, to be exalted, one must enter into the new and everlastng covenant of eternal marriage. For the man is not without the woman, and the woman is not without the man in Christ the Lord. Beyond this there really is not much to go on. Even if Heavenly mother exists, exactly what significance that has on my exitence is very limited. For the sake of brevity, i'll link to a "freerepublic" article which frequently addreses Mormonism. You'll find the article from the link below.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2509981/posts

Within that article you'll find:

“This doctrine that there is a Mother in Heaven was affirmed in plainness by the First Presidency of the Church (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund) when, in speaking of pre-existence and the origin of man, they said that ‘man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father,’ that man is the ‘offspring of celestial parentage,’ and that ‘all men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity.’ (Man: His Origin and Destiny, pp.348-355.)” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 516)

I believe this description is accurate ad reading it I find a lack of reference to Jesus Christ since the First Presidency declaration refers to "man". Through reason and founded on LDS official doctrine, one may conclude that Jesus is included as being born of a Heavenly Father and Mother but interestingly enough I find the lack of placing Jesus Christ as among this celestial parentage of a Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother appropriate for official LDS faith and worship is exclusively centered on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as the Godhead. Adding a "heavenly mother" to that mix would confound many I imagine and result in perverting the true Christian worship the LDS practice.

As for the Godhead, no, no one may enter into it. It's sort of a divine triune club of the "One Eternal God" (Alma 11:22). While the LDS do not believe that man can become part ofthe Godhead, they very much beieve that man may become one with the Father *as* Jesus is one with the Father. That's doctrinal but the exact nature of that blissful eternal existence is not known as far as I can tell. The exact nature of man's oness with the Father through the Son has never been revealed to man as far as I know. God the Father will always be our God and forever be the greatest of all that is and that Jesus Christ will forever stand on the right hand of Power.

[Rob Bowman]

jwhitlock,

I addressed John 17 in my response to Bill Hamblin, mentioned in the thread he started about Witherington's blog.

I'd like to see Rob explain the passages from John 17, where we are to become one with the Father and Son in the same way they are one with each other. That's what poses the real problem for EVs; LDS doctrine concerning the Godhead (as noted above) makes much more sense.

[Walden]

Serious question here: is it a mormon belief that the members of "the godhead" are still progressing, or have they reached a point of perfection from which there can no longer be any progression? If progression is eternal, than it would be easy to see how humans who become gods cannot be the same as the figures in "the godhead", since those figures have been progressing in their exaltation long before the first humans even existed....essentially, they have a infinitely longer headstart on those who are trying to follow in their path.

[altersteve]

Serious question here: is it a mormon belief that the members of "the godhead" are still progressing, or have they reached a point of perfection from which there can no longer be any progression? If progression is eternal, than it would be easy to see how humans who become gods cannot be the same as the figures in "the godhead", since those figures have been progressing in their exaltation long before the first humans even existed....essentially, they have a infinitely longer headstart on those who are trying to follow in their path.

The idea that God is "progressing" is not LDS doctrine. God is perfect in every way.

[Flyonthewall]

I really don't see a challenge here. Let's create a similar statement about a stake presidency and the members of the stake.

1. John, Joe, and Larry comprise the stake presidency.

2. The stake presidency is one in the sense that its members are of one will with each other.

3. Members of the stake cannot become members of the stake presidency.

4. Members of the stake can become one with the stake presidency in just the same way that John, Joe and Larry are one with each other.

Of course being a lay church item 3 is not strictly true but you don't care since we don't get paid..

With respect to heavenly mother add in the wives of the stake presidency as appropriate..

To add another facet to this, each member of the presidency has the title of "President", even though there is only one Stake President.

[Rob Bowman]

shalamabobbi,

Perhaps it's because I'm tired, but I just don't get it. If members of the stake cannot become members of the stake presidency, then they cannot become one with the stake presidency in every sense in which the stake presidency members are one with each other. My objection can be represented formally as follows:

1. Jack, John, and Joe are the only members of the stake presidency.

2. The members of the stake presidency are one with each other in that they are one stake presidency.

3. Therefore, if a person is not a member of the stake presidency, then that person is not one with the members of the stake presidency in the sense that those members are all one stake presidency.

4. Therefore, if Jill is not a member of the stake presidency, then she is not one with Jack in the same way that Jack is one with John and Joe by virtue of their being members of the stake presidency.

Now let me put the argument another way, going back to the actual issue. Is being "of one will" a sufficient and complete definition of the oneness of the Trinity (the Godhead), or is it just part of what is involved in their oneness? This is really the crucial question, I think. Here are your two possibilities:

A. Being "of one will" is a complete description of what makes the members of the Godhead one with each other; exalted humans can become "of one will" with members of the Godhead; therefore exalted humans can become one with the members of the Godhead in every way that the members of the Godhead are one with each other; but a way that they are one with each other is that they are one Godhead; therefore exalted human beings can become part of the Godhead.

B. Being "of one will" is not a complete description of what makes the members of the Godhead one with each other; exalted humans can become "of one will" with members of the Godhead, but there still remains a sense in which the members of the Godhead are "one" with each other than non-members of the Godhead cannot be; therefore non-members of the Godhead cannot become part of the Godhead.

[Flyonthewall]

I would not say God is progressing, per se, but neither would I say He is stagnant. His works never cease though...

[CV75]

First, where does Heavenly Mother fit into this explanation of the Trinity?

***

For that matter, I am having trouble putting the following claims together:

1. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost comprise the Godhead.

2. The Godhead is one in the sense that its members are of one will with each other.

3. Exalted humans can never become members of the Godhead.

4. Exalted humans can become one with the Father and the Son, in just the same way as the Father and the Son are one with each other.

1. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost comprise the Godhead as it relates to the governance of the priesthood keys in this world and our making covenants in the Church.

2. The Godhead is one in the sense that its members are of one will with each other.

3. Exalted humans can never become members of the Godhead as it relates to the governance of the priesthood keys in this world and our making covenants in the Church.

4. Exalted humans can become one with the Father and the Son, in just the same way as the Father and the Son are one with each other, in many ways, such as being members of Zion, joint heirs with Christ, the Church of the Firstborn, etc., but not as it relates to the governance of the priesthood keys in this world and our making covenants in the Church.

We do not know how Heavenly Mother relates to the Father in His Godhead role, or in relation to the governance of the priesthood keys in this world and our making covenants in the Church.

[Walden]

I would not say God is progressing, per se, but neither would I say He is stagnant. His works never cease though...

Sure, I understand that god must be busy, and is therefore not stagnant. I just didn't know whether mormons consider god to be continually progressing or if he had reached a state in which there can be no progression, for everything is known, every power mastered, every truth revealed and nothing left to learn. Personally, that sounds like a rather dreary existence, to know that one has reached a state from which there is nothing more to learn, master, study, etc.

[altersteve]

Sure, I understand that god must be busy, and is therefore not stagnant. I just didn't know whether mormons consider god to be continually progressing or if he had reached a state in which there can be no progression, for everything is known, every power mastered, every truth revealed and nothing left to learn. Personally, that sounds like a rather dreary existence, to know that one has reached a state from which there is nothing more to learn, master, study, etc.

God does not live a "dreary experience." He lives to bring His children the same knowledge and power that He has. There must be no greater joy than that.

[CV75]

A. Being "of one will" is a complete description of what makes the members of the Godhead one with each other; exalted humans can become "of one will" with members of the Godhead; therefore exalted humans can become one with the members of the Godhead in every way that the members of the Godhead are one with each other; but a way that they are one with each other is that they are one Godhead; therefore exalted human beings can become part of the Godhead.

B. Being "of one will" is not a complete description of what makes the members of the Godhead one with each other; exalted humans can become "of one will" with members of the Godhead, but there still remains a sense in which the members of the Godhead are "one" with each other than non-members of the Godhead cannot be; therefore non-members of the Godhead cannot become part of the Godhead.

I think a proper description what is the Godhead is, its function and how it functions is necessary in order to define how "of one will" can be a complete description of this aspect how its Members are "one". There are other forms and applications of being of one will in other settings and conditions and with other groupings and participants along the path we take in the plan of salvation.

[Walden]

God does not live a "dreary experience." He lives to bring His children the same knowledge and power that He has. There must be no greater joy than that.

Believe me, I can relate. My children are everything to me. I spend much of my time, talents and efforts in raising good kids who have honor, integrity, joy, peace, etc., etc., etc.

But I would still find my existence a bit more dreary if there was nothing left for me to learn, and I was essentially in this static state from which I cannot progress, learn, develop, etc.

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

You wrote:

4. Exalted humans can become one with the Father and the Son, in just the same way as the Father and the Son are one with each other, in many ways, such as being members of Zion, joint heirs with Christ, the Church of the Firstborn, etc., but not as it relates to the governance of the priesthood keys in this world and our making covenants in the Church.

Then you agree with me that exalted humans cannot become one with the Father and the Son in every way, but only in some or many ways. If we agree on this much, then the rest of the discussion is about distinguishing in what ways humans can and in what ways they cannot become one with the Father and the Son.

This is an important conclusion, because it means that we can agree that John 17:20-23 does not mean that believers may become one with the Father and the Son in every way that the Father and the Son are one with each other. The text therefore cannot be treated as an obvious proof text for deification; we will need to look at the context to determine in what way Jesus meant for his disciples to be "one."

[shalamabobbi]

I think you are tripping over language and in a sense putting the cart before the horse.

What is, simply is, and language is used in an attempt to describe what we observe. We cannot set up artificle linguistic constructs and then demand that reality bow to our logic. The letter killeth but the spirit giveth life, etc.

Your argument is based entirely on the definition and use of the linguistic term "one". In doing so you demand that the definition be sharply interpreted in a particular way to suit the outcome you seek.

For example I could protest that even though John, Joe and Larry are united in will and the stake membership with them and are all one, they happen to read different books in their spare time and so in this sense they are not actually one. Or they happen to eat different things for dinner so in this sense they are not one.

If the hand is not the head is it nevertheless of one body? Yes but they are not one in function, etc.

going back to the actual issue. Is being "of one will" a sufficient and complete definition of the oneness of the Trinity (the Godhead), or is it just part of what is involved in their oneness?

It is part since the devils can be one in purpose as well. It obviously involves what it is that they are united about and the work that they do. So to recap being one is relative else we lose any distinction at all and force reality to fit linguistic terms and definitions rather then fit language to describe reality. So item B would be more correct than item A.

Edited August 29, 2012 by shalamabobbi

[thesometimesaint]

Walden:

It is my belief that God is progressing. But not in the sense that there is more for him the learn, or become. He is progressing in that it is his work and glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of us his children.

[Flyonthewall]

Sure, I understand that god must be busy, and is therefore not stagnant. I just didn't know whether mormons consider god to be continually progressing or if he had reached a state in which there can be no progression, for everything is known, every power mastered, every truth revealed and nothing left to learn. Personally, that sounds like a rather dreary existence, to know that one has reached a state from which there is nothing more to learn, master, study, etc.

I would say, and this is my own opinion, that to us He has nothing left to learn or power to master or truth to discover, etc... but that doesn't mean there is nothing for Him to reach for. Whatever that is, may be far beyond our capabilities to even imagine, to the point that from our perspective there is nothing left, or could be as simple as learning the personalities of His own children as they come to be.

[CV75]

Then you agree with me that exalted humans cannot become one with the Father and the Son in every way, but only in some or many ways. If we agree on this much, then the rest of the discussion is about distinguishing in what ways humans can and in what ways they cannot become one with the Father and the Son.

This is an important conclusion, because it means that we can agree that John 17:20-23 does not mean that believers may become one with the Father and the Son in every way that the Father and the Son are one with each other. The text therefore cannot be treated as an obvious proof text for deification; we will need to look at the context to determine in what way Jesus meant for his disciples to be "one."

Yes, I agree that exalted humans do not have membership in the Godhead established for the purposes of exalting them, and that they do not function exactly as those Members do during their mortal lifetime, but I believe that they do enjoy a oneness with the Father and the Son as members of the Church of the Firstborn and the "Godhead" function and relationship is replaced with a different one.

Once the Father and the Son continue to be one out of this world (and beyond the application of their Godhead organization for this world), believers may become one with Them in every way that They are one. I see this as deification of a different sort than that of believers being members of a Godhead that organized them while in this world. I still believe individuality, sociality and an order of some sort will continue, but if we narrow it down to a common "will" then I think we can all be one.

So we may disagree that "John 17:20-23 does not mean that believers may become one with the Father and the Son in every way that the Father and the Son are one with each other," because I believe we can be of one mind, heart, will, purpose, etc., after the Godhead's purposes for this world have been completed. And of course we enjoy a measure of being of one mind, heart, will, purpose, etc. with the Godhead in this world.

[rpn]

Individual mormons believe all sorts of things about eternal progression: some even propound their own view as fact. But I'd say we simply don't know, even though there has been lots of speculation.

Edited August 29, 2012 by rpn

[jwhitlock]

jwhitlock,

I addressed John 17 in my response to Bill Hamblin, mentioned in the thread he started about Witherington's blog.

I don't see a link or a response in there addressing John 17; where did you post it?