Becoming Gods?

[SettingDogStar]

17 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I'm not sure about that.  And I'm not sure that they lived it correctly, as they should have lived it.  But even if they did it would still have been only a "shadow" or taste of how things will be when we inherit everything from our Father in heaven.

We will actually own everything there is, just as our Father does, then.  It just won't be "only" ours and nobody else's, because our  Father will still retain ownership of everything, too.  I think of it as something like the type of inheritance we sometimes receive from our mortal fathers (and mothers) when they pass on to the other side of the veil, when they leave everything they have to their children, except that in this case they would still retain ownership of everything they had, and still be alive, while their children also enjoy everything their parents gave them.  Our Father in heaven will certainly still be alive when those who are exalted receive everything they are going to receive from him, and it would be silly to think that his kingdom would diminish, that he would have less and less of his own things, as he gave everything he has to his exalted children.  So this is the only way it would ever make any sense.  The other option would be to start out in our new exalted lives with no possessions at all and then have to start working on creating our own things, receiving nothing at all from our Father in heaven, otherwise he would have to give away everything he had, little by little, to each of his exalted children until he had nothing of his own left at all.

To each their own beliefs, I suppose. 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, SettingDogStar said:

To each their own beliefs, I suppose. 

Yes, even when people are wrong and believe things that are not true.

[The Nehor]

 

[Durangout]

20 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

Except in the Law of Consecration you did, in fact, have personal possessions and property. You would deed all you own to the bishop and then you would be given whatever you needed back. The surplus would then be given to the poor or newly converted. Whatever property you were given was deeded back to you, as your property, with a promise that any surplus you made after that would be given to the Warehouse. The Order Enoch, as laid out, still included personal ownership, property, possessions, and other things. It was not an “everything is everyone else’s” law.

Sorry there are a couple challenges with your response above.  1st you are referring to the United Order as attempted by The. church in the early days.  That and the law of consecration are two different things.  It was their attempt at living the law but it failed.  Additionally where your post fails is that you are using a telestial notion of “ownership” and applying it to a celestial sphere.  I’m quite sure our conception of ownership does not exist in heaven. 

I assume from your comments that I have read in this thread that you believe in MMP ( christianized, repackaged reincarnation)?

I have this hard and fast rule that when the only sources for such a doctrine are excommunicated false prophets and teachers (i.e. Rowe, Stroud et al) I call it bunk...call me crazy.

[SettingDogStar]

11 hours ago, Durangout said:

Sorry there are a couple challenges with your response above.  1st you are referring to the United Order as attempted by The. church in the early days.  That and the law of consecration are two different things.  It was their attempt at living the law but it failed.  Additionally where your post fails is that you are using a telestial notion of “ownership” and applying it to a celestial sphere.  I’m quite sure our conception of ownership does not exist in heaven. 

I assume from your comments that I have read in this thread that you believe in MMP ( christianized, repackaged reincarnation)?

I have this hard and fast rule that when the only sources for such a doctrine are excommunicated false prophets and teachers (i.e. Rowe, Stroud et al) I call it bunk...call me crazy.

Not really no, depends on your definition I suppose, more of something I’ve toyed with or thought about..but don’t believe. But I don’t think we ever come back to this earth or anything like reincarnation. If you’re talking about the possibility of becoming a Savior in the future? Sure! I think and believe it’s an option for some, which would require a second mortal  probation. However, in that belief I’m just following Brigham and others. I don’t follow any such false prophets or purposefully disavowed beliefs or other communities like that. Full and faithful Mormon!

I was just pointing out that the way the Law was revealed to Joseph here on earth included ownership. There have been general conference talks about this because people were concerned it was like communism. The speaker/s (I’ll need to find the talk/s real quick) made sure to clarify that in this law ownership was important and essential. 

Nevertheless, I personally believe we will have personal possessions in the celestial kingdom. Just my belief, I could be wrong! Haha

I get where you’re coming from though!

Edited September 18, 2019 by SettingDogStar

[theplains]

On 9/17/2019 at 12:06 AM, InCognitus said:

These "gods" of necessity must exist in reality for this to be a logical statement, don't you think?

When Moses and Satan are called gods, do you believe that means "deities?"

Does this mean nobody else can be a savior at all, or is it that nobody else can be a savior in the context of salvation of all of Israel?   If you are leaning toward the former, take Obadiah 1:21 into consideration first please.

I mean "saviour / salvation from sin."

Thanks,
Jim

[The Nehor]

On 9/18/2019 at 1:19 AM, SettingDogStar said:

Not really no, depends on your definition I suppose, more of something I’ve toyed with or thought about..but don’t believe. But I don’t think we ever come back to this earth or anything like reincarnation. If you’re talking about the possibility of becoming a Savior in the future? Sure! I think and believe it’s an option for some, which would require a second mortal  probation. However, in that belief I’m just following Brigham and others. I don’t follow any such false prophets or purposefully disavowed beliefs or other communities like that. Full and faithful Mormon!

I was just pointing out that the way the Law was revealed to Joseph here on earth included ownership. There have been general conference talks about this because people were concerned it was like communism. The speaker/s (I’ll need to find the talk/s real quick) made sure to clarify that in this law ownership was important and essential. 

Nevertheless, I personally believe we will have personal possessions in the celestial kingdom. Just my belief, I could be wrong! Haha

I get where you’re coming from though!

I would be careful with application of those talks. Most of them came during the Cold War to rightly point the Saints away from state-sponsored and very atheistic communism. I have no idea if personal possession are a thing in the next life. I kind of hope I get to keep my pet sugar gliders though.

[SettingDogStar]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would be careful with application of those talks. Most of them came during the Cold War to rightly point the Saints away from state-sponsored and very atheistic communism. I have no idea if personal possession are a thing in the next life. I kind of hope I get to keep my pet sugar gliders though.

I was just using those as examples. I just take the Law as revealed to Joseph to say there is possession and personal ownership. I just used those talks to show that others understood the law the same way.

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

I was just using those as examples. I just take the Law as revealed to Joseph to say there is possession and personal ownership. I just used those talks to show that others understood the law the same way.

True. I would avoid getting detached to Joseph’s attempt at consecration. If such an application of consecration were to come again it could be and probably will be fashioned differently.

Edited September 20, 2019 by The Nehor

[SettingDogStar]

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

True. I would avoid getting detached to Joseph’s attempt at consecration. If such an application of consecration were to come again it could be and probably will be fashioned differently.

The revelation in the D&C allows for personal ownership. I’m not talking about some other logistics. The layout, in scripture, isn’t wrong. It’s the people and leaders that attempted it that failed, not the law. The Lord wouldn’t give a Law that was imperfect and designed to fail. There might be more additions because of our modern age, but the basics as laid out in scripture will be be altered because they don’t need to be. Or at least that’s what I read from history. I don’t feel like the law written needs any major renovation.

Edited September 21, 2019 by SettingDogStar

[SettingDogStar]

On 9/17/2019 at 2:05 PM, Ahab said:

Yes, even when people are wrong and believe things that are not true.

That seems a little passive, not really appreciative of that. I respect your beliefs and I would hope you’d respect mine. 

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

The revelation in the D&C allows for personal ownership. I’m not talking about some other logistics. The layout, in scripture, isn’t wrong. It’s the people and leaders that attempted it that failed, not the law. The Lord wouldn’t give a Law that was imperfect and designed to fail. There might be more additions because of our modern age, but the basics as laid out in scripture will be be altered because they don’t need to be. Or at least that’s what I read from history. I don’t feel like the law written needs any major renovation.

The doctrines and principles underlying the practice are eternal but the application of those, even in scripture, is not necessarily forever. We canonized divine instructions on how to distribute stock in something God wanted built. I don’t think that is eternal either.  

[SettingDogStar]

Just now, The Nehor said:

The doctrines and principles underlying the practice are eternal but the application of those, even in scripture, is not necessarily forever. We canonized divine instructions on how to distribute stock in something God wanted built. I don’t think that is eternal either.  

No, but I think the personal ownership/property portion would stay. At least for this earth, can’t make a bet on what happens after. I believe we’ll have personal possession in Heaven because the law here is a mirror of Heaven..but it might be different. Honestly, I don’t really know for sure. 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

No, but I think the personal ownership/property portion would stay. At least for this earth, can’t make a bet on what happens after. I believe we’ll have personal possession in Heaven because the law here is a mirror of Heaven..but it might be different. Honestly, I don’t really know for sure. 

Of course there is personal ownership in heaven.  But only for exaltation.  Remember the blessings of the marriage ceremony.

ETA maybe too strong a phrase...

Edited September 21, 2019 by JLHPROF

[mfbukowski]

51 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Of course there is personal ownership in heaven.

Just curious why you believe this.  You can organize anything you want.  What do you want to hang on to your own junk?   Besides the question of what you mean by "heaven".

But even that is thinking like an earthling, which we cannot get beyond while we are .... earthlings.  Think of caterpillars speculating on how it will be to fly.  Would it be reasonable form them to think they know about how to do a left bank and roll in a high wind as well as they will know it when they are butterflies?

Maybe it's just a semantics thing as usual.  Thinking of the sealing ceremony, I just see it as a description of priesthood keys we and our wives may hold together to serve others.

Suppose for example one was given control over the government, as perhaps a perfected European king might have had way back when.   Would that be "ownership" of the government or something they "have" to do with whatever they wanted or more like a responsibility for holding keys to serve others?

Does God "own" this world and everything in it?

I just see it as an odd way to characterize it I guess.

Edited September 21, 2019 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Just curious why you believe this.  You can organize anything you want.  What do you want to hang on to your own junk?   Besides the question of what you mean by "heaven".

But even that is thinking like an earthling, which we cannot get beyond while we are .... earthlings.  Think of caterpillars speculating on how it will be to fly.  Would it be reasonable form them to think they know about how to do a left bank and roll in a high wind as well as they will know it when they are butterflies?

Maybe it's just a semantics thing as usual.  Thinking of the sealing ceremony, I just see it as a description of priesthood keys we and our wives may hold together to serve others.

Suppose for example one was given control over the government, as perhaps a perfected European king might have had way back when.   Would that be "ownership" of the government or something they "have" to do with whatever they wanted or more like a responsibility for holding keys to serve others?

Does God "own" this world and everything in it?

I just see it as an odd way to characterize it I guess.

Perhaps ownership is too strong a word.  Stewardship over our kingdoms and dominions might be better.  The Bishop doesn't own the ward but it is his.  A person doesn't own their family but it is theirs.

I guess it comes down to if we "own" our own kingdoms.  Probably not.

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Perhaps ownership is too strong a word.  Stewardship over our kingdoms and dominions might be better.  The Bishop doesn't own the ward but it is his.  A person doesn't own their family but it is theirs.

I guess it comes down to if we "own" our own kingdoms.  Probably not.

yep, agree. 

When God gives you a "Stewardship" though I don't know if thank -yous are exactly appropriate. 

It can feel as if some "stewardships" should be delivered by a dump truck.   

 

[InCognitus]

12 hours ago, theplains said:

On 9/16/2019 at 9:06 PM, InCognitus said:

These "gods" of necessity must exist in reality for this to be a logical statement, don't you think?

When Moses and Satan are called gods, do you believe that means "deities?"

The context dictates the meaning of “elohim” or “theos” in each case.  For Moses, it was that he was to be God’s prophet, God’s spokesman and representative to Pharaoh.  For Satan, he is the one responsible for the evils of this world, and his rule over people’s lives leads many to their destruction. 

 But neither of these meanings makes sense in the context of the “God of gods” in Deut 10:17 if you think about it, does it?  As I mentioned previously, the Hebrew superlative expresses a contrast within the same classification, so it is a King over other actual kings, a Lord over other actual lords (or whatever the superlative).   It isn’t that God is the Representative of representatives (as would be for the case of Moses) or the False leader of false leaders (or whatever would apply to Satan), but he is the God of gods.  Perhaps you can explain how your view would work in this context?

What it means to be “gods” is a key point here.  It’s indisputable that the earliest Christians (2nd and 3rd century) taught that men become gods, and they often used this verse (or the phrase "God of gods") in their teachings on this topic.  But what exactly they meant by that is what is debated.

 

12 hours ago, theplains said:

Quote

Does this mean nobody else can be a savior at all, or is it that nobody else can be a savior in the context of salvation of all of Israel?   If you are leaning toward the former, take Obadiah 1:21 into consideration first please.

I mean "saviour / salvation from sin."

I agree with that, and certainly salvation from sin is included in his salvation of Israel and of us all, as the context in Isaiah 43 bears this out (i.e. verse 25).  But this is exactly what gives verse 11 the meaning that is relevant to our understanding of the verse you quoted (Isaiah 43:10), a verse that I feel is often misused by some in trying to claim that nobody else can become a god.  In saying, “beside me there is no saviour” the LORD is NOT telling Israel that no other saviors exist, but that there is no other SAVIOR that saves them from sin, no other that redeems them from death, none that can deliver them the way he will deliver them.  There is only one that does that.  The same is true of verse 10, when it says “I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.”   He is telling Israel (and us), don’t go looking after other gods (so to speak), he is the only one who is their God, nobody else is going to fill that role.

Thanks for your input.

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Perhaps ownership is too strong a word.  Stewardship over our kingdoms and dominions might be better.  The Bishop doesn't own the ward but it is his.  A person doesn't own their family but it is theirs.

That's exactly what I was thinking as I've read through this thread:

"For it is expedient that I, the Lord, should make every man accountable, as a steward over earthly blessings, which I have made and prepared for my creatures.  I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine."  (D&C 104:13-14)

This verse is talking about stewardship pertaining to this earth, but I think the principle extends beyond our earthly stewardship. And I like your analogy with the bishop and "his ward", or each one of us and "our family". 

We may have possessions, but I guess it is debatable on whether that mean ownership.  Revelation 2:17 says those who overcome will be given a "white stone", which sounds like an object that belongs to the individual who receives it.  

 

 

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, InCognitus said:

That's exactly what I was thinking as I've read through this thread:

"For it is expedient that I, the Lord, should make every man accountable, as a steward over earthly blessings, which I have made and prepared for my creatures.  I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine."  (D&C 104:13-14)

This verse is talking about stewardship pertaining to this earth, but I think the principle extends beyond our earthly stewardship. And I like your analogy with the bishop and "his ward", or each one of us and "our family". 

We may have possessions, but I guess it is debatable on whether that mean ownership.  Revelation 2:17 says those who overcome will be given a "white stone", which sounds like an object that belongs to the individual who receives it.  

The word belongs to no man, but is shared - that's why it is the word. Notice it is a writing with a name written in it. It is a name which no one knows but them that receive it. Our temple liturgy is only a symbol or allegory of it. Only 144,000 actually receive it.

[JLHPROF]

47 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

The word belongs to no man, but is shared - that's why it is the word. Notice it is a writing with a name written in it. It is a name which no one knows but them that receive it. Our temple liturgy is only a symbol or allegory of it. Only 144,000 actually receive it.

Not necessarily.  The 144,000 isn't a limit.  God doesn't limit how many can ever receive exaltation to an arbitrary number.

[RevTestament]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Not necessarily.  The 144,000 isn't a limit.  God doesn't limit how many can ever receive exaltation to an arbitrary number.

The person giving the name knows it, and everyone else doing endowments that day knows it. That doesn't meet the scriptural criterion for the 144,000  only knowing the name. Nor did I ever say only the 144,000 "are exalted." If you want to take the meaning out of the scripture, I can't stop you, but it is the law, and I don't think you can change it by calling it an arbitrary number. Good luck with that. 

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

The person giving the name knows it, and everyone else doing endowments that day knows it. That doesn't meet the scriptural criterion for the 144,000  only knowing the name. Nor did I ever say only the 144,000 "are exalted." If you want to take the meaning out of the scripture, I can't stop you, but it is the law, and I don't think you can change it by calling it an arbitrary number. Good luck with that. 

144,00 is a quorum number.  Like 24 teachers or 96 elders.

Just because a quorum fills doesn't preclude more.  A second quorum is formed.

Edited September 22, 2019 by JLHPROF

[RevTestament]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

144,00 is a quorum number.  Like 24 teachers or 96 elders.

Just because a quorum fills doesn't preclude more.  A second quorum is formed.

I am talking about the 2nd quorum - the first was filled before coming to this earth, and the last have now been sealed. Rev 7:4. 

[etana]

Left field answer:

Given that "All things are present before/with [him]" D&C 38:2, Moses 1:6
and that He is "one eternal round" D& C 3:2
and that "was and is and is to come" Rev 1:8, 4:8, 23:13
and that "[we] are gods" Ps 82:6, John 10:34 et al
and that "[those] who overcome will inherit all things" Rev 21:6-7 et al
and that God is one and we are to be one with him 1 Cor 6:17. John 17:20-23
and that a modern prophet had a couplet that said as Man is as God once was etc.
a conclusion could be that God ourselves is a causal loop. That He is us and we (some of us) are him, that that is why the plan culls and vets us to be part of "The Body of Christ, that cells in a body don't seek supremacy over their neighbors, but Love the "Head" with all their heart etc. and their neighbors as themselves.