Becoming God

[Billy]

See the following:

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

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

Daniel C. Peterson quote starts

. . ."Yes, they can. We should first note Psalm 8:3â??6, in which the Psalmist addresses an important question to God. The passage reads as follows in the King James Version of the English Bible:

When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and with honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet.

Our concern here is specifically with verse 5, which, in the King James translation, places human beings "a little lower than the angels." This is a strong statement and one that is often quoted in order to illustrate the majesty and dignity of humankind. Yet, even so, it is too weak. The Hebrew word underlying KJV "angels" is actually elohim. The "angels" of Psalm 8:5 KJV are, literally, "'elohim' beings, the members of the heavenly court."281 The passage should therefore almost certainly be translated, rather, as "thou hast made him a little lower than God" or, even, as "thou hast made him a little lower than the gods."

Daniel C. Peterson quote ends

Daniel C. Peterson feels that the Angels should be changed to gods because the term elohim (0430 Strong's) was used in verse 5 of Psalms 8. But if this was true then you would need to change all of the other verses below as well which also use elohim (0430) except the Hebrew verse which uses aggelos (32)

Hbr 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels (aggelos 32); thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

Psa 8:5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels (elohim 0430), and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

Exd 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges (elohim 0430); he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

Exd 22:8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges (elohim 0430), [to see] whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods.

Exd 22:9

[jadams_4242]

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

Daniel C. Peterson quote starts

. . ."Yes, they can. We should first note Psalm 8:3â??6, in which the Psalmist addresses an important question to God. The passage reads as follows in the King James Version of the English Bible:

When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and with honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet.

Our concern here is specifically with verse 5, which, in the King James translation, places human beings "a little lower than the angels." This is a strong statement and one that is often quoted in order to illustrate the majesty and dignity of humankind. Yet, even so, it is too weak. The Hebrew word underlying KJV "angels" is actually elohim. The "angels" of Psalm 8:5 KJV are, literally, "'elohim' beings, the members of the heavenly court."281 The passage should therefore almost certainly be translated, rather, as "thou hast made him a little lower than God" or, even, as "thou hast made him a little lower than the gods."

Daniel C. Peterson quote ends

Daniel C. Peterson feels that the Angels should be changed to gods because the term elohim (0430 Strong's) was used in verse 5 of Psalms 8. But if this was true then you would need to change all of the other verses below as well which also use elohim (0430) except the Hebrew verse which uses aggelos (32)

Hbr 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels (aggelos 32); thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

Psa 8:5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels (elohim 0430), and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

Exd 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges (elohim 0430); he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

Exd 22:8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges (elohim 0430), [to see] whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods.

Exd 22:9

[Cold Steel]

He did say, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." But the very next verse also says: "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.

I have some real problems with this notion. There would be nothing wrong with God reminding the people that despite their glorious potential, they still are far from being the Sons of God that is their potential destiny. Despite their heritage, they still must die and be judged according to their works as it pertains to their fallen nature. The reference to "children of the Most High" puts the scripture in context and makes it clear that they're more than mere judges.

[Cold Steel]

But if this was true then you would need to change all of the other verses...as well which also use elohim except the Hebrew verse which uses aggelos

Not true. Translation is more than just changing words from one language to another. Context has to be taken into account in all languages. In Hebrew, the word "breath" and the word "spirit" are the same. You can't say because it's translated one way here, it must therefore be translated that way every other time. It would make no sense to say that God created man a little lower than the judgesâ??the King James translators realized that much. Even so, they couldn't quite bring themselves to interpret it "gods."

[Zemah]

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.

By your interpretation every tyrant who has ever imposed his will over other men is a god. I can't believe that is what our Lord is speaking about.

Psalms 82:1 clearly describes a divine multitude of â??godsâ?. The Jerusalem Bible reads: â??God stands in the divine assembly, among the gods he dispenses justice.â?

Zemah

[MormonMason]

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.

He was given of the fulness at first, from grace to grace, before his mortality on earth. This is why he was called both Father and Son, because the Father gave him of his fulness. He then emptied himself and his mortal body grew from grace to grace until he received a fulness by being highly exalted. His spirit and body are one in a literal sense, it being entirely infused with Spirit and the spirit and body being intertwined forevermore, never to be separated again. It does not take that much to say what I have said.

As to his exaltations, he gains a higher exaltation as we are exalted, and the Father is exalted by this and further glorified, and His kingdom grows and expands from all eternity to all eternity. And, they do this without dying and being raised again and again.

[MormonMason]

...

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!)

...

Awww, well, that's just because you don't know him well enough! He has a rather wry sense of humor that takes a little getting used to. Joseph Smith once threatened to horsewhip Pratt if he didn't work harder and learn Hebrew. He learned it alright.

[Phinehas]

By your interpretation every tyrant who has ever imposed his will over other men is a god. I can't believe that is what our Lord is speaking about.

Psalms 82:1 clearly describes a divine multitude of â??godsâ?. The Jerusalem Bible reads: â??God stands in the divine assembly, among the gods he dispenses justice.â?

Zemah

Exodus 22:8-9, God is now laying down His law that the judges were to enact upon the people. And when these things would happen, this kind of a condition existed, this is how the judges were to rule in those cases. And so the Word of the Lord is coming to the judges over Israel that they might enact upon Israel the laws of God. So in verse 8, as He's talking about a situation if a thief is not found, then the master of the house shall be brought to the judges. To see whether he has put his hand into his neighbor's good. For all manner of trespass, whether it is for an ox, or an ***, or sheep, or raiment, or for any matter lost thing, which another challenges to be his. The cause of both party shall come before the judges and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double his neighbor.

Now, the interesting thing is that the word translated judges is the Hebrew word elohim, which is the word for gods. So that the judges are as gods over the people in that they are controlling the destiny of these people as they meet out their judgment. They are acting in God's place, and so those whom He called gods were actually those judges who were enacting God's laws upon the people. it is just declaring that the judges were called gods because of the responsibility they had of enacting God's judgments upon the people. And so, to whom the word came, the judges, the rules came to them, they were then called gods. And so, Jesus said, "Is it not written in your law, that you're gods, I said you're gods." So He's not really referring to Psalms, but He's referring directly back to the book of Exodus, chapter 22, verses 8 and 9.

[Zemah]

Exodus 22:8-9, God is now laying down His law that the judges were to enact upon the people. And when these things would happen, this kind of a condition existed, this is how the judges were to rule in those cases. And so the Word of the Lord is coming to the judges over Israel that they might enact upon Israel the laws of God. So in verse 8, as He's talking about a situation if a thief is not found, then the master of the house shall be brought to the judges. To see whether he has put his hand into his neighbor's good. For all manner of trespass, whether it is for an ox, or an ***, or sheep, or raiment, or for any matter lost thing, which another challenges to be his. The cause of both party shall come before the judges and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double his neighbor.

Now, the interesting thing is that the word translated judges is the Hebrew word elohim, which is the word for gods. So that the judges are as gods over the people in that they are controlling the destiny of these people as they meet out their judgment. They are acting in God's place, and so those whom He called gods were actually those judges who were enacting God's laws upon the people. it is just declaring that the judges were called gods because of the responsibility they had of enacting God's judgments upon the people. And so, to whom the word came, the judges, the rules came to them, they were then called gods. And so, Jesus said, "Is it not written in your law, that you're gods, I said you're gods." So He's not really referring to Psalms, but He's referring directly back to the book of Exodus, chapter 22, verses 8 and 9.

Jesus also said that His saints shall judge the world. So it follows that the "gods plurial" doctrine of the LDS Church is correct.

Saints progress into gods. The word 'Elohim' is a plural form of 'God'.

Zemah

[MormonMason]

And so, Jesus said, "Is it not written in your law, that you're gods, I said you're gods." So He's not really referring to Psalms, but He's referring directly back to the book of Exodus, chapter 22, verses 8 and 9.

Jesus is quoting Psalm 82:6 (LXX, Psalm 81:6). The structure and wording of the Greek sentence makes that pretty clear from the perspective of the Greek sentences. The wording is identical and the use of words indicating quotation and reference to a written text are unmistakable. Why he referred to the Psalms as "your Law" is uncertain to me but that he quoted from a sentence of the Psalm verbatim is certain.

[BCSpace]

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

No. I have not read Ostler's work, but everytime I encounter quotes from him, he always strikes me as one who never went to a real LDS ward meeting or read any doctrinal works, but rather has studied on the fringes of LDS gospel hobbyism.

Now this is only a snippet referenced by the OP, but if there is no other reference, notice the switch context.....

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.

In blue is the doctrine essentially how it has been since the KFD and repeated in Gospel Principles (which has not changed here in decades). Ostler switches from that context (of official doctrine) to a personal interpretation without giving any doctrinal references.

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.

How does this preclude prior progression? In addition, the Son was premortally divine, but not fully so, not having a physical body as the Father did. In other words, there was progression.

[cinepro]

My biggest fear is that, in the end, our god may end up being nothing more than a middle manager. After all, His glorified body bears all the signs of having been intelligently designed (complex parts that probably couldn't have evolved, etc.), so there must be something out there that is designing these gods.

I'd like to worship the god designer.

[Changeling]

To MormonMason:

How did Christ qualify to be given a fulness at first, when according to Joseph Smith all of the [other] gods had to get there by progressing?

What do you think Joseph Smith meant when he said that we must go from exaltation to exaltation until we attain the resurrection of the dead? That's not the sequence of events that's normally taught.

[MormonMason]

To MormonMason:

How did Christ qualify to be given a fulness at first, when according to Joseph Smith all of the [other] gods had to get there by progressing?

What do you think Joseph Smith meant when he said that we must go from exaltation to exaltation until we attain the resurrection of the dead? That's not the sequence of events that's normally taught.

Well, before I answer I'd have to see the original quotes in the original context in the original documents. Please do provide references and I will do my best to check out what was said. Thanks!

[Bee Eff]

How did Christ qualify to be given a fulness at first, when according to Joseph Smith all of the [other] gods had to get there by progressing?

Your first question is rather simple to answer.

Abraham 3:18-24

18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.

19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.

20 The Lord thy God sent his angel to deliver thee from the hands of the priest of Elkenah.

21 I dwell in the midst of them all; I now, therefore, have come down unto thee to declare unto thee the works which my hands have made, wherein my wisdom excelleth them all, for I rule in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, in all wisdom and prudence, over all the intelligences thine eyes have seen from the beginning; I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen.

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;

23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

Christ was the "one among them that was like unto God." Christ was, when formed, perfect. The Bible states:

Isa. 43: 10

10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

He was the only one formed by God that was perfect at the moment of forming.

................................................................................

What do you think Joseph Smith meant when he said that we must go from exaltation to exaltation until we attain the resurrection of the dead? That's not the sequence of events that's normally taught.

At present I am only aware of the following:

Times and Seasons 8/15/1844

I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are the simple and first principles of the gospel, to know for a certainty the character of God, that we may converse with him as one man with another, and that God himself, the Father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ didâ?¦what did Jesus say? Jesus said, 'as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power;' to do what? Why what the Father did, that answer is obviousâ?¦Here, then is eternal life, to know the only wise and true God. You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done; by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exhaltation to exhaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting powerâ?¦

Exalted means of high moral or intellectual value; elevated in nature or style. Exhaltation to exhaltation simply means to go from one state to another progressing. Thus, going from simple spirit, limited by the absence of physical form, to a soul is entering an exhaltation. It is moving from the exhalted status of spirit, in relation to simple intelligence, to the exhalted status of soul, in relation to the spirit without a physical form. Exhaltation to exhaltation. And we will continue moving from exhaltation to exhaltation until we are "as God is."

If this does not sufficiently answer the question please supply a reference for this so a proper response can be formed.

[Changeling]

To MormonMason:

I don't have original documentation, only my copy of Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. However, I think Bee Eff has provided original documentation from the Times & Seasons article he quotes.

To Bee Eff:

Joseph Smith also taught that Jesus did only what he saw the Father do, and that the Father was once a man as we are now. This implies that Jesus indeed had to progress just like anyone else, as that is what his Father did.

If Christ was the "one like unto God" in the scriptures you cite, that doesn't preclude him having also been once a man, just like God was once a man. Indeed, I'd say it implies that he had already walked much of the path his Father had walked.

On the other hand, it would be unreasonable for Christ to exort us to become like he is if he never had to walk the path that we would have to walk to get there. His place is much more impressive if he earned it instead of inheriting it.

I take the word "exaltation" to mean "qualifying for and receiving a celestial glory." I have never before heard of this earth life as being an "exaltation" in comparison to the existence that preceded it. If this is exaltation, then it's exaltation to a telestial world - in other words, exaltation to a hell!

[MormonMason]

So do you think that Talmage misinterpreted that quote?

Not purposefully, no. But, I do believe that he may have been influenced by the interpreters of the Bible who held to that position.

Or do you think that Talmage has the right interpretation?

I believe that may be a yes and a no, depending upon which aspect of the text in which one places one's focus. If one focuses on the usage of the Hebrew comparative usage of the inseparable preposition kaph, meaning "like," one might say that it refers to divine beings who will die "like man" or "like Adam" if they do not change their ways. In the context of the wording of the entire passage I would have to say that originally this had reference to the early Semitic pantheon presided over by 'El 'Elyon, in which 70 sons were given responsibility of watching over the nations which were divided amongst them according to their number (compare Dead Sea Scrolls Deuteronomy 32:8-9). In point of fact, 'Elyon is the name given. So, in that light, Talmage was incorrect.

Interestingly, modern scholars and even Bible translators have become less afraid to admit that meaning of the passage in light of its historical context. For instance, here is the footnote from the New American Bible:

As in Psalm 58, the pagan gods are seen as subordinate divine beings to whom Israel's God had delegated oversight of the foreign countries in the beginning (Deut 32:8-9). Now God arises in the heavenly assembly (Psalm 82:1) to rebuke the unjust "gods" (Psalm 82:2-4), who are stripped of divine status and reduced in rank to mortals (Psalm 82:5-7). They are accused of misruling the earth by not upholding the poor. A short prayer for universal justice concludes the psalm (Psalm 82:8 ).

Here are the ones from the NET Bible passage of 82:1:

2 tn The phrase עדת אל ('adat 'el, "assembly of El") appears only here in the OT. (1) Some understand "El" to refer to God himself. In this case he is pictured presiding over his own heavenly assembly. (2) Others take אל as a superlative here ("God stands in the great assembly"), as in Pss 36:6 and 80:10. (3) The present translation assumes this is a reference to the Canaanite high god El, who presided over the Canaanite divine assembly. (See Isa 14:13, where El's assembly is called "the stars of El.") In the Ugaritic myths the phrase 'dt 'ilm refers to the "assembly of the gods," who congregate in King Kirtu's house, where Baal asks El to bless Kirtu's house (see G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 91). If the Canaanite divine assembly is referred to here in Ps 82:1, then the psalm must be understood as a bold polemic against Canaanite religion. Israel's God invades El's assembly, denounces its gods as failing to uphold justice, and announces their coming demise. For an interpretation of the psalm along these lines, see W. VanGemeren, "Psalms," EBC 5:533â??36.

3 sn The present translation assumes that the Hebrew term אלהים ('elohim, "gods") here refers to the pagan gods who supposedly comprise El's assembly according to Canaanite religion. Those who reject the polemical view of the psalm prefer to see the referent as human judges or rulers (אלהים sometimes refers to officials appointed by God, see Exod 21:6; 22:8â??9; Ps 45:6) or as angelic beings (אלהים sometimes refers to angelic beings, see Gen 3:5; Ps 8:5).

Notice what is said relative to those who reject the polemical view or sense of the passage.

[MormonMason]

...

Daniel C. Peterson feels that the Angels should be changed to gods because the term elohim (0430 Strong's) was used in verse 5 of Psalms 8. But if this was true then you would need to change all of the other verses below as well which also use elohim (0430) except the Hebrew verse which uses aggelos (32)

Hbr 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels (aggelos 32); thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

Psa 8:5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels (elohim 0430), and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

...

No. Not really. The author of Hebrews quoted from a later version of the Septuaguint. The Greek there says angels so it is appropriate to leave it as it reads in the translation. However, the Hebrew does not use the word for angels, notwithstanding Hebrew does actually have a word that means angel!

On the other hand, as to your other verses, other translators handle the passages a little differently. They make reference to bringing the person before God, as it was held that when people were judged God himself was believed to be present. See, for example, the NRSV translations of these passages.

[MormonMason]

Not true. Translation is more than just changing words from one language to another. Context has to be taken into account in all languages. In Hebrew, the word "breath" and the word "spirit" are the same. You can't say because it's translated one way here, it must therefore be translated that way every other time. It would make no sense to say that God created man a little lower than the judgesâ??the King James translators realized that much. Even so, they couldn't quite bring themselves to interpret it "gods."

I agree with your understanding, having experience with translation from one language to another. It makes no sense to sasy that man was made a little lower than judges. Angels, maybe. But, as I have said above, Hebrew did have a word for angel, which is not used here.

I find the passage interesting, nonetheless, for various reasons. Some translate 'elohim as singular in the Psalm 8:5 passage, which then has man being only a little less than God! That makes for some pretty uncomfortable theology for some evangelicals when the implications of such a rendering hit home!

[MormonMason]

To MormonMason:

I don't have original documentation, only my copy of Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. However, I think Bee Eff has provided original documentation from the Times & Seasons article he quotes.

I'll take a look at a few other resources as soon as I have time. But, I do not think Joseph attached the same meaning to the passage as you do, particularly in context of what he revealed in other places and as to the scriptures.

To Bee Eff:

Joseph Smith also taught that Jesus did only what he saw the Father do, and that the Father was once a man as we are now. This implies that Jesus indeed had to progress just like anyone else, as that is what his Father did.

This passage is ambiguous at best and can be taken in so many ways. For instance, some who claim Adam is God say that Jesus watched Adam become mortal and pass through life and lay down his life to bring mortality to his children. Latter-day Saints use it to refer to a vision which Jesus saw of what his Father did and carried out the same acts. There are other interpretations out there besides these.

I agree that he did progress as to his mortal body. He came here to show us how it is to be done by us. But, his spirit already had the fulness given before coming here as the scriptures teach.

If Christ was the "one like unto God" in the scriptures you cite, that doesn't preclude him having also been once a man, just like God was once a man. Indeed, I'd say it implies that he had already walked much of the path his Father had walked.

I would not go so far as you do with respect to Jesus. The scriptures as a whole absolutely do preclude Jesus from having been a mortal man previous to his coming to earth in the flesh. But, when he did come here he did do as his father did before. That is the most straightforward reading of the text, in my view.

On the other hand, it would be unreasonable for Christ to exort us to become like he is if he never had to walk the path that we would have to walk to get there. His place is much more impressive if he earned it instead of inheriting it.

But, in his mortal flesh he did walk as we did and became in all respects as we. He showed us how it is done. We, on the other hand, have a number of differences from him. Before that, he already had the fulness given to him by the Father. And, he did this before taking on himself mortal flesh. I'd say that is most impressive, certainly more so than us intellectual and eternally progressive "slowpokes" in comparison to him.

I take the word "exaltation" to mean "qualifying for and receiving a celestial glory." ...

This is a common but mistaken understanding. There will be many who will qualify for and receive a celestial glory but who will not be exalted--the angels for one, as well as those who remain separate and single in other degrees of the celestial kingdom for eternity, for another. That there are differing levels or classes--even among the gods!--is implied, in my understanding, by the curious wording of Doctrine and Covenants 132:18-20:

18 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto themâ??Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depthsâ??then shall it be written in the Lamb's Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 132:18-20)

If there are gods by whom those who are exalted will pass, as with the angels, it stands to reason that there are other, lower classes of gods in the celestial kingdom, and that those who are exalted will pass beyond them as they do the angels.

[Cold Steel]

Jesus progressed in mortality using the same processes that govern everyone else. He was born with a veil that caused Him to forget everything before and He learned through study and revelation. He also came to this earth to gain a body, which also was necessary. He lived as a man, ate, drank, was temptedâ??maybe even had a wife. He was baptized, became a rabbi and was reknown as a teacher.

[Bee Eff]

Joseph Smith also taught that Jesus did only what he saw the Father do, and that the Father was once a man as we are now. This implies that Jesus indeed had to progress just like anyone else, as that is what his Father did.

If Christ was the "one like unto God" in the scriptures you cite, that doesn't preclude him having also been once a man, just like God was once a man. Indeed, I'd say it implies that he had already walked much of the path his Father had walked.

On the other hand, it would be unreasonable for Christ to exort us to become like he is if he never had to walk the path that we would have to walk to get there. His place is much more impressive if he earned it instead of inheriting it.

I take the word "exaltation" to mean "qualifying for and receiving a celestial glory." I have never before heard of this earth life as being an "exaltation" in comparison to the existence that preceded it. If this is exaltation, then it's exaltation to a telestial world - in other words, exaltation to a hell!

The word exhaltation does indeed at times reference "qualifying for and receiving a celestial glory." But, the word does not reference such in this context, how could it? In this context it means from one eleveated status to another.

I think you are reading too much into a simple statement.

[Changeling]

To Cold Steel and MormonMason:

Temporarily forgetful or not, Jesus' nature was way, way beyond that of one of us. The question is, how did he acquire his premortal nature? Was it earned by progression (the same as all the other Gods), or was it an unearned gift because he's the lucky favorite number-one son?

[Bee Eff]

To Cold Steel and MormonMason:

Temporarily forgetful or not, Jesus' nature was way, way beyond that of one of us. The question is, how did he acquire his premortal nature? Was it earned by progression (the same as all the other Gods), or was it an unearned gift because he's the lucky favorite number-one son?

He was lucky and his formation was simply perfect. Nothing to do with favoritism. But, he did prove himself in the pre-existence if you are asking that.

[Changeling]

To Bee Eff:

Since in the quotation from Times and Seasons Joseph Smith places the resurrection AFTER these multiple exaltations, there is another interpretation.

And that is, we must get an A in more than one class before we graduate with honors.

edit to reply to your post just above:

If Christ was lucky and started out perfect, then his victory here or in the preexistence rings pretty hollow as he never had to earn or achieve perfection.