Jump to content
Sanpitch

Becoming Gods?

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/frequently-asked-questions

Quote

12. Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will “get their own planet”?

No. This idea is not taught in Latter-day Saint scripture, nor is it a doctrine of the Church. This misunderstanding stems from speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine. Latter-day Saints believe that we are all sons and daughters of God and that all of us have the potential to grow during and after this life to become like our Heavenly Father (see Romans 8:16-17). The Church does not and has never purported to fully understand the specifics of Christ’s statement that “in my Father’s house are many mansions” (John 14:2).

It is correct, imo, but incomplete.  I think it should have been more explicit that we believe part of being like Heavenly Father is sharing in the creation process.

I think it's less incomplete than contradictory.  

"We are all sons and daughters of God and that all of us have the potential to grow during and after this life to become like our Heavenly Father"

True.  And does Heavenly Father preside over any planetary kingdoms?  I don't think answering that can rightly be called speculative or not based in scriptural doctrine.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/frequently-asked-questions

It is correct, imo, but incomplete.  I think it should have been more explicit that we believe part of being like Heavenly Father is sharing in the creation process.

I always thought that answer was weird. If we’re like our Heavenly Father then we will have the opportunity to create planets. It’s not speculation, it’s not questionable, it’s scriptural, and talked about by Joseph Smith himself. “We get a planet” is a little crude of the sentence, but it’s completely and totally true.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

I always thought that answer was weird. If we’re like our Heavenly Father then we will have the opportunity to create planets. It’s not speculation, it’s not questionable, it’s scriptural, and talked about by Joseph Smith himself. “We get a planet” is a little crude of the sentence, but it’s completely and totally true.

I think they are reacting against the cartoonish version where it is more a planet becomes our plaything rather than in worlds' creation, the pattern of what has happened before will be followed.  I think I would have liked them listing scriptures that referred to it and saying people have interpreted them multiple ways.

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Sanpitch said:

The own Planet teaching may have not been in the scriptures but it was hinted at enough to give member the idea of their own planet.  My faithful LDS family certainly believed in the leading brothren:

Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.48:

The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fulness of his kingdom. In other words we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fulness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring. We will have an endless eternity for this.

Notice the PLURAL word "WORLDS"

The word "planet" does not appear that quote anywhere.

We know that our Father reigns over worlds without number.

That quote captures exactly what others here have been telling you.

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post

OK, we don't get our own planet, but we could have worlds to govern with just our own off offspring.

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think they are reacting against the cartoonish version where it is more a planet becomes our plaything rather than in worlds' creation, the pattern of what has happened before will be followed.  I think I would have liked them listing scriptures that referred to it and saying people have interpreted them multiple ways.

I mean maybe I’ll be super “pure” when I come into the celestial kingdom or something...but I have to wonder if God didnt experiment as He was learning to obtain His powers. Like a painter dabbling in various art forms, making paintings that have no purpose but to solely enjoy painting itself. I wonder if God did the same? I’m sure world building is a no brained for Him now but with all the beautiful (and basically useless) planets there are..I wonder if some of those were made just because He wanted to, not becuase He had to.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Sanpitch said:

OK, we don't get our own planet, but we could have worlds to govern with just our own off offspring.

I mean those worlds would technically be “our own” if we govern them and created them. 

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, Sanpitch said:

The own Planet teaching may have not been in the scriptures but it was hinted at enough to give member the idea of their own planet.  My faithful LDS family certainly believed in the leading brothren:

Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.48:

The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fulness of his kingdom. In other words we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fulness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring. We will have an endless eternity for this.

Hi second-cousin! Love that we met for the first time on this site, and you gave me much insight to my mom and grandparents having lived right next door!

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

I mean maybe I’ll be super “pure” when I come into the celestial kingdom or something...but I have to wonder if God didnt experiment as He was learning to obtain His powers. Like a painter dabbling in various art forms, making paintings that have no purpose but to solely enjoy painting itself. I wonder if God did the same? I’m sure world building is a no brained for Him now but with all the beautiful (and basically useless) planets there are..I wonder if some of those were made just because He wanted to, not becuase He had to.

I think that would be a lot of fun and if not populated by humanity and/or any other eternal beings (for nonlds, we believe at least some of God's other creations have eternal intelligence/spirits as we do and will also be resurrected and have their part to play in the Plan of Salvation just like us, any details are pretty speculative****), it doesn't seem like there would be an impact on the Plan of Salvation.  Likely only those resurrected or even exalted would be the only ones to encounter them. 

****https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2012/03/to-the-point/do-animals-have-spirits-what-happens-to-them-after-they-die?lang=eng

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Sanpitch said:

Years ago on this board the subject of becoming Gods was discussed.  The church website with an answer and question  site at that time said No, the church does not teach that.  The Doctrine and Covenants does claim that it is an option for the worthy, and your own planets etc.  So which is it now.  I think D&C 132- 19 covers it.

Maybe this helps...

Quote

Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.
Joseph F. Smith
John R. Winder
Anthon H. Lund
Official Declaration of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
November 1909

Quote

Jesus Christ is not the Father of the spirits who have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this earth, for He is one of them. He is The Son, as they are sons or daughters of Elohim. So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring. Only such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents have attained exaltation.
The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day SaintsSalt Lake City, Utah, 30 June 1916

 

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Sanpitch said:

OK, we don't get our own planet, but we could have worlds to govern with just our own off offspring.

To put it crudely, thinking in terms of "a planet" is thinking too small.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Hi second-cousin! Love that we met for the first time on this site, and you gave me much insight to my mom and grandparents having lived right next door!

Good to read from you.  It'S been a long time.  I'm still around.

Share this post


Link to post

Yonder is matter unorganized.....

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap190904.html

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, theplains said:

Using Gods seemed to be perfectly fine for the LDS Church for many decades until they made a change
in the 2013 Book of Mormon.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/scriptures/approved-adjustments_eng.pdf?lang=eng

Alma 12:31—”becoming as Gods” to “becoming as gods” (lowercase gods)

The "Gods" or "gods" contention has always seemed frivolous to me, since there are different historical and official LDS texts that show "Gods" or "gods", with or without the capital G.   The reason for either choice has to do with context and the stated relative authority of one being over others who are subject to the one.

This is no different than what is done in all Bible translations.  For example, the Hebrew language has no case distinction (upper or lower case) letters, but we see Deuteronomy 10:17 translated in the KJV as:  "For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords".  God is said to be "God" (with a capital G) over other "gods" (lowercase g).  There is nothing nefarious about making the choice to use a lowercase "g" in to translate the Hebrew elohim as "gods" instead of "Gods".  But the choice shows how the translators view the authority of God over other "gods".

In Latter-day Saint teaching and understanding of these things, all who become "gods" are always subject to the one "God" who is above all, similar to what is stated in Revelation 21:7:  "He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son."
 
But the scriptures also teach that those who "overcome" will sit with God in his throne (Rev 3:21) and be given power to rule the nations (Rev 2:26-27), and they will be worshiped by others (Rev 3:8-9).  In this scenario, those who are ruling and sitting with God in his throne might be considered "Gods" over those who are subject to them, even though they themselves are "gods" who are subject to the one "God" above all.   

I’m belaboring the point.  But this is why I think this argument of the capital "G" (or lack thereof) is a non-issue.

Now the quote from the prior post, shown above, implies that the change in the Book of Mormon text of Alma 12:31 is some kind of shift in the way the LDS church portrays these things.  But this is just silly.  In Alma chapter 12, Alma recounts some of the events that transpired with our "first parents" in the garden of Eden.  The reference in verse 31 to them "becoming as gods, knowing good from evil", is obviously alluding to what is stated in the Bible in Genesis 3:5 and 3:22.  The capital "G" was printed that way in Alma 12:31 in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon.  But this recent change is apparently to make it conform to the way it is stated in the Bible.  Consequently, I don’t see how this is relevant to this topic.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

But this recent change is apparently to make it conform to the way it is stated in the Bible.

Makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

I mean maybe I’ll be super “pure” when I come into the celestial kingdom or something...but I have to wonder if God didnt experiment as He was learning to obtain His powers. Like a painter dabbling in various art forms, making paintings that have no purpose but to solely enjoy painting itself. I wonder if God did the same? I’m sure world building is a no brained for Him now but with all the beautiful (and basically useless) planets there are..I wonder if some of those were made just because He wanted to, not becuase He had to.

Beauty is not useless.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/7/2019 at 6:12 PM, Sanpitch said:

Years ago on this board the subject of becoming Gods was discussed.  The church website with an answer and question  site at that time said No, the church does not teach that.  The Doctrine and Covenants does claim that it is an option for the worthy, and your own planets etc.  So which is it now.  I think D&C 132- 19 covers it.

Do you really want to be a god with your own planet? After all, that is a pretty big responsibility... all those disobedient, wayward children.... if you want to be their God, it seems you will have to die for them if you are going to obtain the fullness of the Father, the same way Yeshua did.... oh, I forgot, that's not doctrine yet. It's nice to be God without the responsibilities of being a Father, but it seems Yeshua wasn't able to do it.

BTW I do not view Elohim as quite the same as being God the Father. Did not He say in Deuteronomy that He is an El of elohim? Who are those elohim? Are they pagan statues like Protestants would have you think? Do they help Him teach the word? Are they given His title in their own names? Does He use them in His allegories as parables for the benefit if future generations? Is that different than just being a messenger/angel? I pose these are thoughts worth pondering if one wants to be elohim. maybe it would behoove one to understand what elohim meant in Hebrew... rather than the English "gods" - a word based on the Germanic gott. Just yammering out loud here... :) 

Share this post


Link to post

The church teaches it as part of the plan of salvation. Yes, I fully plan on being a God and ruling my own kingdoms.  Who doesn’t?

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

The church teaches it as part of the plan of salvation. Yes, I fully plan on being a God and ruling my own kingdoms.  Who doesn’t?

I do, though I know I have a hell of a lot to work on and sacrifice if I’m going to obtain that. Abraham desired the same thing and what he had to give up was immense..so I suppose I’ll see when the time comes.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/9/2019 at 2:58 AM, InCognitus said:

Now the quote from the prior post, shown above, implies that the change in the Book of Mormon text of Alma 12:31 is some kind of shift in the way the LDS church portrays these things.  But this is just silly.  In Alma chapter 12, Alma recounts some of the events that transpired with our "first parents" in the garden of Eden.  The reference in verse 31 to them "becoming as gods, knowing good from evil", is obviously alluding to what is stated in the Bible in Genesis 3:5 and 3:22.  The capital "G" was printed that way in Alma 12:31 in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon.  But this recent change is apparently to make it conform to the way it is stated in the Bible.  Consequently, I don’t see how this is relevant to this topic.

There are cases where the use of "god" is not a reference to deity but rather to rulership (like in the cases of Moses being
a god to Pharaoh; Exodus 7:1 and Satan being a god of this world; 2 Corinthians 4:4).

If conformity to the Bible is the issue as you said in Genesis 3:5 and 3:22, then one would have to say that Jesus and
Heavenly Father are "gods".  This is not a far stretch considering that the 1997 Gospel Principles also referred to Heavenly
Father as a god  ("All good things come from God. Everything that he does is to help his children become like him—a god.
He has said, Behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:39
).")

In the current edition, the church removed "a god".

Thanks,
Jim

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/8/2019 at 7:33 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

John 10:34-36 (citing Ps 82:6)
Jesus replied, “Is it not written in your Law: ‘I have said you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came— and the Scripture cannot be broken— then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?

Which gods (past tense) are being referenced by Psalms 82:6 and which gods (future tense) are being referenced by
D&C 132:20?

Thanks,
Jim

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/8/2019 at 4:54 PM, mfbukowski said:

To put it crudely, thinking in terms of "a planet" is thinking too small.

Probably get a whole solar system.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/9/2019 at 2:57 PM, 2BizE said:

The church teaches it as part of the plan of salvation. Yes, I fully plan on being a God and ruling my own kingdoms.  Who doesn’t?

I think the church went a little further in the 1997 version of Gospel Principles.

"3. They will have their righteous family members with them 
and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit 
children will have the same relationship to them as we do 
to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family."

This part was removed from the current version of GP.

If you are an exalted man, the implication is that your spirit children will worship you as their Heavenly
Father of your worlds like you supposedly worshipped Heavenly Father of Earth. 

This is the path that some man from another world followed when he became a God (as Joseph Smith taught)
and populated our Earth and sent Jesus to atone for sin.

Thanks,
Jim

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, theplains said:

Which gods (past tense) are being referenced by Psalms 82:6 and which gods (future tense) are being referenced by
D&C 132:20?................................

Psalm 82:6 has 'elohim 'atem "you are gods" in synonymous parallel with bnei 'eliyon "Sons of the Most High."  However, it is helpful to go back to 82:1 "God ... in the Divine Council...in the midst of the gods," in order to see that a chief God is judging other gods in the Divine Assembly.  This isn't a past action, but rather a continuous action, because the Divine Assembly sits continuously.  Indeed, this is a pre-Israelite concept, which the Israelites are heir too.  See Daniel O. McClellan, “Psalm 82 in Contemporary Latter-day Saint Tradition,” Interpreter, 15 (2015):79-96, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/psalm-82-in-contemporary-latter-day-saint-tradition/ ; Daniel O. McClellan, “’You Will Be Like the Gods’: The Conceptualization of Deity in the Hebrew Bible in Cognitive Perspective,” master’s thesis (Trinity Western Univ., 2013), online at https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6259597/You%20Will%20Be%20Like%20the%20Gods.pdf ; E. T. Mullen, Jr., The Assembly of the Gods, Harvard Semitic Monograph 24 (Scholars Press, 1980); Conrad L’Heureux, Rank Among the Canaanite Gods, Harvard Semitic Monograph 21 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press/Ann Arbor: Edwards Bros., 1979).   

G. del Olmo Lete characterizes ilhm in Ugaritic texts as "the ʼIlāhūma, divine beings," and relates them to Hebrew ʼĕlōhîm.[1]  Tess Dawson says that "the Ugaritic word ʼilahuma is related to one of the names of the Hebrew deity, Elohim, which means 'gods'."  However, she sees the ʼilahuma or Divine Assembly as the sons and daughters of ʼAthiratu and Ilu.[2]  That is, Asherah and El.

D&C 132 has to do with how men can become gods (apotheosis).

[1] Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed., 82,85,87,180.

[2] Dawson, The Horned Altar: Rediscovering & Rekindling Canaanite Magic (MN: Llewellyn Worldwide, 2013), 48, ʼAthiratu = Asherah, who is elsewhere the consort of YHWH.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...