Becoming God

[Lachoneus]

In his latest book, "Exploring Mormon Thought: Of God and Gods" (pp.17-18), Blake Ostler states:

I believe that until recently almost all Mormons believed that Joseph Smith taught that God progressed to become fully divine from a lower state of non-divinity. Thus, it was believed that God the Father became God; before that, he was something less than God. During the eternal time period before which he was "God," or fully divine, he worshiped and was subject to another God, who was more ultimate that he was. I believe that such a view has been widely reassessed in light of the arguments in Chapter 12 of

The Problem of Theism and the Love of God

. There, I argued that Joseph Smith's observation that the Son does just what the Father did entails that the Father was fully divine

before

becoming mortal because the Son was fully divine before becoming mortal. Moreover, according to Joseph Smith, the Father as a mortal did what only a divine being could do--lay down his life and take it up again. Based on these observations, it seems to me that the view is now widely accepted among Mormon scholars and writers that the Father was fully divine before becoming mortal, just as the Son was.

Does anyone here agree with Blake? Is this view "now widely accepted"?

[MormonMason]

In his latest book, "Exploring Mormon Thought: Of God and Gods" (pp.17-18), Blake Ostler states:

Does anyone here agree with Blake? Is this view "now widely accepted"?

I have long held this view. An anecdotal account I heard also had President Hinckley hold that view. (I do not know much more than that other than that the person I heard it from had proven to be a reliable source to me prior to my hearing this; it was allegedly heard in a meeting with him).

I know others who also hold this view based upon the wording of the KFD itself, compared with a few other texts in the Bible and Doctrine and Covenants relative to the life of Jesus Christ and his states of existence connected with that.

Whether it is widely accepted or not I could not begin to prove at this time. I hope that it is a widely accepted view. In my opinion this meaning does justice to the evidence as a whole.

[Lightbearer]

In his latest book, "Exploring Mormon Thought: Of God and Gods" (pp.17-18), Blake Ostler states:

Does anyone here agree with Blake? Is this view "now widely accepted"?

No, I do not, although I do know that we do not know a lot about it we are taught the following:

(â??Chapter 47: Exaltation,â? Gospel Principles, 301) "The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: â??When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospelâ??you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the graveâ? (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 348).

This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: â??It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. â?¦ He was once a man like us; â?¦ God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself didâ? (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345â??46).

Our Heavenly Father knows our trials, our weaknesses, and our sins. He has compassion and mercy on us. He wants us to succeed even as he did."

It sounds like he (Blake) is trying to "mainstream" Mormonism. Trying to say that we are somehow not of the same potential to become as God is... He received "grace for grace" just as we must, at least that is how it is stated here:

(D&C 93:10-29) "The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him. And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us. And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace; And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness; And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first. And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son. And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father; And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him. And it shall come to pass, that if you are faithful you shall receive the fulness of the record of John. I give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fulness. For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace. And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn; And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstborn. Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth; And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come; And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning. The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth; And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments. He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things. Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be."

From the above scripture I think it tells us that we are able to become just as the Father is, just as Jesus did... it states that He did not receive a fullness at first and that is why He is called the Son of God. We are also Sons and through the Firstborn we can also become as the Father is, even a fullness. Olster's comments seem to underestimate our potential and imply that if we become a God, it is of some lesser sort. That is not what the restored Gospel teaches. While it is true that God the Father will always be our God, still we will be equal to Him in the sense that our spirit children will regard us just as we do our Father.

[consiglieri]

First, let me say that I think Blake Ostler is extremely intelligent and has done a lot of impressive work on the philosophical basis of Mormonism.

My concern is that the same could be said of Origen and the philosphical basis of Christianity.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[TOmNossor]

I doubt that Blakeâ??s ideas are more prevalent than the more traditional view. I am however one who as I was firming up what I thought on these issues was heavily influenced by Blakeâ??s thought. I do not recall having much resistance to the ideas Blake presented in this area, but I would doubt that it is appropriate to say that I have always felt that God the Father was never merely a man.

Now, in contrast to the above, Blake believes that God exists â??in time.â? I was reluctant to embrace this view, but have. Also Blake believes that God (and presumably all eternal intelligence) have always been â??in time,â? I do not agree with him here.

It is my opinion that Blakeâ??s ideas on God the Father being eternally divine are very solid in LDS scripture (Bible included or excluded it does not matter). It is my opinion that Blake has addressed the KFD, and based upon that text I would agree with Blake that Joseph Smith taught that God the Father was divine before He was mortal. It is my opinion that Blake has sufficiently dealt with the Sermon in the Grove and while this is not a clear win for Blakeâ??s position, it is at worst just the wrong side of neutral and at best on Blakeâ??s side of neutral. So, I would suggest that Blakeâ??s case is so strong that when given some license from President Hinckley and weighed with the many statements by prophets from Brigham Young to ???, Blakeâ??s view is the more sound. I would not suggest that the more traditional view is not something a LDS can embrace, but it is IMO opinion not the best position.

I am opposed to the idea that my view or Blakeâ??s view is a result of trying to accommodate non-LDS Christianity. I think there is evidence that LDS thought until a few decades ago was driven some (which is too much) by a desire to distinguish us from non-LDS Christianity. This resulted in our emphasis upon works such that some folks forget that it is grace. This resulted in our emphasis upon our deification that some folks forget that it is through Christ that we are deified.

Now, Blake has spoken against some of Mormon neo-orthodoxy that tries to embrace some of the scholastic theology views elevating God to a non-changing outside of time being. Instead Blake argues that God does progress, just not from non-divinity to divinity. God is affected by our prayers and is in genuine relation with us. Blake sided with Brigham Young in his conflict with Pratt concerning the attributes of God.

I do not think we can afford to take the Bible and other LDS scriptures and create a theology designed to distinguish us from non-LDS Christianity. Likewise, we can not afford to take developed ideas within non-Restoration Christianity and accept them just to avoid battles. There is room to learn from past LDS AND from folks who have read and tried to understand the Bible for 1700+ years before the restoration. But in the end, we need to embrace a theology that is the best understanding of Godâ??s theology we can discover. I would suggest that this discovery is a many faceted thing that must included scripture, general authorities, and personal revelation.

Anyway, I do not think Blakeâ??s view is the most common within the church. I would be a little surprised to discover that his ideas are the most common within scholarly LDS circles. But, I embrace his ideas (in this area, and in most areas) and I suspect the number of scholars who do is not a tiny fringe, but substantial.

Charity, TOm

[TOmNossor]

Olster's comments seem to underestimate our potential and imply that if we become a God, it is of some lesser sort. That is not what the restored Gospel teaches. While it is true that God the Father will always be our God, still we will be equal to Him in the sense that our spirit children will regard us just as we do our Father.

I think Ostler would suggest that he does not embrace limited deification. I suspect he would say that nobody believes that we will become the person who sent Jesus Christ to be born of a virgin in Palestine and to be killed by the Jews. Instead, that which is essential to divinity is that which we will have in its fullness.

Ostler to my knowledge is one of the few LDS authors who has attempted to define â??Divinity as such.â? The Pratt brothers did to some extent, but some of their ideas were condemned by a first presidency statement. What the fullness of divinity is within LDS thought is important when trying to decide whether Ostlerâ??s form of deification is limited or not. LDS cannot believe that God is the eternal being who created everything ex nihilo.

Ostler has suggested that divinity as such is built upon the statement â??God is love.â? To be fully divine is to be a full member of the divine community. This is something that we can become and that God has always been (except in some ways during His incarnation).

Charity, TOm

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

I'm by no means a "scholar," but I reject Ostler's view.

[Rommelator]

First, let me say that I think Blake Ostler is extremely intelligent and has done a lot of impressive work on the philosophical basis of Mormonism.

My concern is that the same could be said of Origen and the philosphical basis of Christianity.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Exactly. It is my fear that the precious truths of the Kingdom are being replaced, albeit slowly, with the pholosophized "logical" theology of men such as Brother Ostler. Do not get me wrong, I am not attacking Brother Ostler's character, and I still respect him as a great intellect. However, I severely disagree with a lot about what he is now writing about the nature of God. I like some of what he has written, but a lot of it I cannot disagree more.

To me, it is pretty clear that Joseph Smith taught progressive deification wherein our Father has been eternally "evolving", so to speak, from stage to stage of spiritual progression. Line upon line, knowledge upon knowledge, exaltation to exaltation, light to light, etc. It is not just the case wherein our father enacted the role of a Savior during one of his mortal probations, but that he has literally been eternally progressing and will continue to progress, as all of us will/are.

[Cold Steel]

In his latest book, "Exploring Mormon Thought: Of God and Gods" (pp.17-18), Blake Ostler states: Does anyone here agree with Blake? Is this view "now widely accepted"?

The whole book is a waste of time and paper. The truth is, no one of us knows what this process entails or how long it takes to graduate. We know NOTHING of the Father's mortal existence, nor do we know what being a "god" entails. All we know is that we are on a journey of progression that has no discernible limitations. To speculate is pointless. To record what "most" Mormons think is even more pointless. (What Mormon views are towards Bigfoot and UFOs fall into the same category, BTW.)

Before anyone can go about taking part in the creation process, it will require a fulness of knowledge, wisdom, power and glory. Beyond this, anything else is completely conjecture.

[MormonPeasant]

I am not a scholar, but certainly am a student of LDS theology. I don't think mainstream Mormons give much thought of God's progression to becoming God as us fringe players.

I stumbled across the God-Messiah idea while reading Jesus the Christ and Doctrines of Salvation back in college. I kind of pieced it together and thought God was a Messiah just as his son Jesus is for us. I rarely heard anyone else talk about it. So, I accept Blake's interpretation that God the Father has always been divine like his Son has always been, but not his suggestion that it is widely accepted in the Church these days.

I really don't see any conflict with being divine from day one while working out one's exaltation. Christ did it, why not Heavenly Father as well?

[erichard]

...To me, it is pretty clear that Joseph Smith taught progressive deification wherein our Father has been eternally "evolving", so to speak, from stage to stage of spiritual progression. Line upon line, knowledge upon knowledge, exaltation to exaltation, light to light, etc. It is not just the case wherein our father enacted the role of a Savior during one of his mortal probations, but that he has literally been eternally progressing and will continue to progress, as all of us will/are.

So in the "confict in the Quorum" between President Young and Orson Pratt over the nature of God, you would side with Brigham?

I certainly side with Brigham in their little controversy, but it is regrettable that Orson Pratt never had his day in court.

D&C 107:81-84 allows for having legitimate controversies over the President of the church settled by a trial. Brigham would say of Orson, "I'll pull his ear till I get him right!" Brigham was a bit of a bully in my book. It was unthinkable of that generation of Mormons to question "President Young" any more than the British to question their Queen. (Wait, it is still this way!)

I am convinced Brigham got his doctrine from Joseph Smith, and was basically correct about the principle of "Eternal Progression" of finite exalted beings such as The Father and the Son. On the other hand, the full infinite Union of exalted beings is not in a state of Eternal progression, and never will be. It eternally has all knowledge and power. So Orson's understanding of God does apply to the uncreated eternal One Infinite God-- just not to the finite personages in the Union of God.

Richard.

[Bee Eff]

In his latest book, "Exploring Mormon Thought: Of God and Gods" (pp.17-18), Blake Ostler states:

Does anyone here agree with Blake? Is this view "now widely accepted"?

It's a poor understanding of the concept. We do not "become" gods, we are gods. When Christ was questioned as to how he could claim to be the Son of God, Christ responds that God has stated "ye are gods."

We have the divine nature, we are gods. We have the potential to be as God is. This "becoming as God is" is not an alteration in nature, it is an alteration in knowledge, behavior and understanding. We are as God is, but not as God is. When a male child is pre-adult, that child is still human and male exactly as his father is, but he is not an adult and thus is not as his father is.

Sure, there will be changes, our bodies will be purified of the contaminants that have effect on physiology. Sure our bodies will be altered and changed. This is of no consequence because "God is spirit." The core of who and what we are is our knowledge, behavior and understanding. Everything else is superfluous to who we are. Sure a physical body is necessary, but it is not who we are.

There was never a time when God was less than God. Such is an impossibility and a fallacy according to our beliefs. Blake is not correct and does not understand our beliefs.

[johnny]

Bee Eff,

It's a poor understanding of the concept. We do not "become" gods, we are gods. When Christ was questioned as to how he could claim to be the Son of God, Christ responds that God has stated "ye are gods."

Christ also added a qualifier to his statement "Ye are gods". He said in the next verse they are called gods "whom the word of God came".

We have the divine nature, we are gods. We have the potential to be as God is. This "becoming as God is" is not an alteration in nature, it is an alteration in knowledge, behavior and understanding. We are as God is, but not as God is. When a male child is pre-adult, that child is still human and male exactly as his father is, but he is not an adult and thus is not as his father is.

We have the potential to be righteousness and holy like God because men can partake of the divine nature. Men can become adopted sons of God by partaking of the Holy Ghost.

[Changeling]

What if the son also did not start out "fully divine"? What if he did not have a fulness at first, but had to progress from a smaller capacity to a greater one, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, the same as all gods that had gone before?

What if we don't have a fulness of the record of this, in part because the number of books it would take to contain it all would fill the whole earth?

Just a thought.

[Rommelator]

So in the "confict in the Quorum" between President Young and Orson Pratt over the nature of God, you would side with Brigham?

Yes. His views are most consistent with what the Prophet Joseph Smith taught in Nauvoo.

I certainly side with Brigham in their little controversy, but it is regrettable that Orson Pratt never had his day in court.

I agree. I think everyone has the right and oppertunity to present their views on the nature of God. No one should be denied the right to their opinion on deity.

Brigham was a bit of a bully in my book.

I get what you mean, but I don't think it is appropriate to classify Pres. Young as a "bully". He had shortcomings and character flaws like the rest of us, to be sure, but I don't think he was a "bully".

I am convinced Brigham got his doctrine from Joseph Smith, and was basically correct about the principle of "Eternal Progression" of finite exalted beings such as The Father and the Son.

So am I.

I think the Pratt brothers were on the right track, but misapplied some important ideas. For example, the Book of Abraham details that intelligence is eternal and, similarly, that matter is also eternal. Considering that God is matter/intelligence, that is how I think he is eternal. His substance and his being is eternal, as we, as intelligence, all are as well. As intelligence/matter, we all are of an eternal substance. However, that does not mean that through our eternal progression that we are static in our knowledge, light and glory. Compare it life on earth. We all are substances of matter, but that still does not mean that we are not gaining knowledge, experience, light and truth as we mature over our lifetime. Now apply that to an eternal perspective and there you go.

[thesometimesaint]

Ye ARE Gods.

[Cold Steel]

I am not a scholar, but certainly am a student of LDS theology. I don't think mainstream Mormons give much thought of God's progression to becoming God as us fringe players. ... I accept Blake's interpretation that God the Father has always been divine like his Son has always been, but not his suggestion that it is widely accepted in the Church these days.

If we, as Latter-day Saints, can accept the fact that God is ONE, it's not a huge, complicated leap to the idea that God is what we attain to. We are all co-eternal with God, meaning that we have neither a beginning nor an end; however, we lack the ability to progress, and we rely on God to help us bridge what we were, to what we are, to what we will become. As we journey from raw intelligence to beings of spirit, to beings of mortal flesh and finally, perfection, we have the potential to becoming not just "a" god, but God.

We know from the scriptures that though God is one, it is a singularity of purpose. God's mission statement is eloquently stated in the Book of Moses: "For this is my work and my glory: to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." As sons, daughters and heirs of God, one being does not have to pass on so another takes His place. That is a mortal concept. There is no trinity mentioned in scripture because the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are ONE. What Joseph Smith taught, and which the apostle John alluded to, is that we become joint heirs with Christ through the atonement. As joint heirs, we don't just become godsâ??we become God. We become one with God. As such, we can become creators of worlds, just as the Father is. Then His mission statement becomes our mission statement, and everything the Father can say, we can say because we are ONE with the Father, ONE with the Son, and ONE with the Holy Spirit. We, too, become eternity-to-eternity the same unchangable God. And all our works will be the Father's works, worlds without end.

I don't find this concept blasphemous at all. It was not mankind that decided its relationship to the Father, to God, was familial. That was dictated by God. We are His Sons and we will, through the atonement of Christ, be perfected and become what He is.

[Billy]

Ye ARE Gods.

I like what James Talmage has to say about this quote in Jesus the Christ

Jesus the Christ

JAMES E. TALMAGE

page 489

http://books.google.com/books?id=tSEPAAAAIAAJ

"Fearless, and with the compelling calmness of more than

human majesty, Jesus said: "Many good works have I

shewed you from my Father ; for which of those works do

ye stone me?" They angrily retorted: "For a good work

we stone thee not ; but for blasphemy ; and because that

thou, being a man, makest thyself God.'"' Plainly they had

found no ambiguity in His words. He then cited to them

the scriptures, wherein even judges empowered by divine

authority are called gods,' and asked: "Is it not written in

your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

[LifeOnaPlate]

I like what James Talmage has to say about this quote in Jesus the Christ

Jesus the Christ

JAMES E. TALMAGE

page 489

http://books.google.com/books?id=tSEPAAAAIAAJ

"Fearless, and with the compelling calmness of more than

human majesty, Jesus said: "Many good works have I

shewed you from my Father ; for which of those works do

ye stone me?" They angrily retorted: "For a good work

we stone thee not ; but for blasphemy ; and because that

thou, being a man, makest thyself God.'"' Plainly they had

found no ambiguity in His words. He then cited to them

the scriptures, wherein even judges empowered by divine

authority are called gods,' and asked: "Is it not written in

your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

I like how several Evangelical proof-texters have quoted that very paragraph to me clearly without understanding of the background on Talmage, what he thought, what sources he referenced, and what he taught elsewhere on gods.

[Billy]

I like how several Evangelical proof-texters have quoted that very paragraph to me clearly without understanding of the background on Talmage, what he thought, what sources he referenced, and what he taught elsewhere on gods.

So do you think that Talmage misinterpreted that quote?

Or do you think that Talmage has the right interpretation?

[stillsmallvoices]

So do you think that Talmage misinterpreted that quote?Or do you think that Talmage has the right interpretation?

This podcast really illustrates a fantastic discussion of both points of view and I completely disagree with Ostler on this. Go hereVan Hale with Guest Blake Ostler

So do you think that Talmage misinterpreted that quote?Or do you think that Talmage has the right interpretation?

This podcast really illustrates a fantastic discussion of both points of view and I completely disagree with Ostler on this. Go hereVan Hale with Guest Blake Ostler

[Phinehas]

He did say :

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

But the very next verse also says:

Psa 82:7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

I have come to understand this as God speaking to the judges. He's speaking to men that He appoints, or that were to be appointed, who have the power over a person's life. And that's what your god is. Whatever it is that's holding power over your life is your God. So if this man sitting on the bench has your life in his power, the control of your life in his hand, then he is a god; he's controlling your destiny.

[thesometimesaint]

John 10: 24-37

24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.

25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Fatherâ??s name, they bear witness of me.

26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 My Father, which agave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Fatherâ??s hand.

30 I and my Father are one.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

That makes no sense if Jesus is talking about earthly judges

[Billy]

John 10: 24-37

24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.

25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Fatherâ??s name, they bear witness of me.

26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 My Father, which agave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Fatherâ??s hand.

30 I and my Father are one.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

That makes no sense if Jesus is talking about earthly judges

Jesus is saying, Ye are gods?

Who are the gods that Jesus is referring to?

1. Those who are trying to kill him

2. The religious Jewish leadership at the time of Christ

3. Unrighteous judges in Psalm 82:6-7 (as noted above by Phinehas)

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.

Psa 82:7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

[Rommelator]

Jesus is saying, Ye are gods?

Who are the gods that Jesus is referring to?

1. Those who are trying to kill him

2. The religious Jewish leadership at the time of Christ

3. Unrighteous judges in Psalm 82:6-7 (as noted above by Phinehas)

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.

Psa 82:7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

See the following:

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/bookscha...&chapid=258