GoCeltics

Abraham 4 mentions Gods. I don't see any noble humans (premortal spirit beings) being involved.

Do the gods of Psalm 82 have these qualities?

When President Kimball referred to humans as gods in embryo, doesn’t this mean we are gods right now, but progressing to become more mature ones?

Which Mormon scriptures clearly identify gods being exalted humans (humans being made gods) instead of only receiving divine titles and authority?

Former President Kimball said “Man is [present tense] a god in embryo and has in him the seeds of godhood, and he can, if he will, rise to great heights.” What are all these qualities that already makes [present tense] a man a god in embryo? But if some future achieving of necessary qualities makes a person a god, are the gods of Psalm 82 children of a different Father?

Could be both. “God” as a human (a species) and a role (judge). Every offspring of a human (a species/a God) is likewise a God. Having “God” as a role makes all the judges who serve in that role “Gods.”

If that’s what makes a person a god, are the gods of Psalm 82 children of a different Father?

You’re trying to make a species-difference between a human and a God. God is taught to be an exalted human. His offspring are also humans; the same species. So, technically, humans are Gods now.

When is the moment you are first considered a god and/or have a divine nature?

What about a horse just born?

I think you're assuming the very point that needs to be proven: that “God's offspring” means “the same kind of being as God.” Paul's argument in Acts 17 doesn't require that. He says God created the world, gives humanity life, and sustains us (vv. 24–26). Then he says, “we are indeed his offspring.” In context, that can naturally describe our derivation from and dependence upon God without making us divine by nature. Notice what Paul doesn't say: He doesn't say, “Therefore, we are gods.” He doesn't say, “Therefore, we possess God's divine nature.” He doesn't say, “Therefore, humans can become gods.” He doesn't say, “Therefore, humans are the same kind of being as God.” Instead, he concludes: “Therefore we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone” (v.29). His point is that the Creator shouldn't be reduced to an idol made by human hands. And “offspring” clearly doesn't necessarily mean “same divine nature.” Adam is called “the son of God” in Luke 3:38, yet that obviously doesn't mean Adam was God or possessed God's divine nature. Likewise, being God's “offspring” in Acts 17 establishes a relationship to God; it doesn't establish that humans are gods. So the key question remains: Where does Paul make the additional move from “we are God's offspring” to “we are the same kind of being as God”? He doesn't. Your conclusion has to be imported into the passage.

No, but from a non-Christian view, it’s logical that literal offspring of a literal God are literally Gods. That would include Satan, also an offspring of God and brother to Jesus. If God really is an exalted human from another world, then his offspring are also human.

In the Bible, “offspring” (or “seed,” “descendants,” “children”) is sometimes used non-literally—to describe people who belong to, resemble, follow, or arise from someone or something, rather than literal biological children of a heavenly parent. A few clear examples: Genesis 3:15 — “offspring/seed” of the woman and “offspring/seed” of the serpent. The serpent's offspring are not presented as literal children biologically fathered by the serpent. The language is commonly understood as referring to those aligned with the serpent and those opposed to him. Matthew 3:7 / Luke 3:7 — John the Baptist calls the Pharisees and Sadducees a “brood of vipers.” This is figurative lineage language: they are characterized as belonging to or resembling vipers, not literally descended from snakes. John 8:39–44 — Jesus distinguishes physical descent from figurative “fatherhood.” The people say, “Abraham is our father,” but Jesus says that if they were truly Abraham's children, they would do Abraham's works. He then says, “You are of your father the devil.” The point is spiritual/moral affiliation, not biological descent. Romans 4:11–12, 16–18 — Paul describes Abraham as the “father” of those who have faith, including Gentiles who are not his biological descendants. “Father” and “offspring” language is therefore used relationally/representatively. Galatians 3:7, 29 — “Those of faith are the sons of Abraham” and “if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring.” Most of these people are not Abraham's literal biological descendants; the designation is based on faith and covenant relationship. Revelation 12:17 — the dragon goes to make war against “the rest of her offspring,” identified as those “who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.” Again, “offspring” functions as an identity/relationship metaphor rather than ordinary biological parentage.

I would say the literal offspring of a God is a literal God, albeit less developed. Congrats. You are a God right now.

“The local congregational leader for Latter-day Saints is the bishop (or branch president, for smaller congregations). A bishop holds the priesthood and is ordained to the office of bishop by a more senior Church leader. He earns his own living and receives no pay of any kind for his service in the Church” (Church Newsroom, Lay Priesthood).

I don’t see how understanding there being only one true God is connected with your belief we are the same kind of being God is. Apart from the Son, Holy Spirit, and Heavenly Mother, can you identify a few of all these other Gods who are currently subjected to him? Does you being “one” with God make you one of these Gods now? Or do you become “one” with God at some future date?

If being offspring truly implies the necessity of a heavenly mother. Referring to “the only true God” makes no sense when Earth is thought by some to have at least four true Gods: Father, Son, Mother, and Holy Spirit.

If God the Father is not a being who became a God and produced spirit children with his heavenly wife, then he is not the true one. “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

Except that worshipping Joseph Smith’s God leads to another destination.

Two or more people can ask the same question and that makes them the same person. Sure 😀

It depends on how you interpret what the Father is doing while Jesus is acting based on what he observes the Father doing. Yes.

The benefits of celestial marriage I guess. A man cannot be exalted without a woman by his side. It could even be logical that he was the first that the Mother assisted to reach exaltation.

While there is a doctrine acknowledging her existence as a God and heavenly parent, there is no explanation of how she attained godhood. I suspect she followed the same plan that you are said to be following now. It’s logical.

Nope. Who formed Heavenly Mother into a God?

@InCognitus “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." The phrase 'he doeth' is in the present tense. I don't interpret this as Jesus having spirit children or entering into marriage. Apparently both you and Incognitus concur with Joseph Smith's teaching there are Gods above Heavenly Father and that our Father is merely one in an endless chain with his own heavenly parents. That would clarify how he received a spiritual body prior to obtaining a mortal one.