Becoming God

[Bee Eff]

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.

The physical state is exhalted from the spiritual state. To gain the ressurection and thus eternal life and further exhaltations, we must have become physical beings as well as spiritual beings.

Christ's victory is not hollow, God gains glory through Christ's sacrifice for us. Christ gains glory through those he saves. This the Bible teaches. Perfection and the status of God are not hollow things. From the Trinitarian view of God, yes, such would indeed be hollow, as there was nothing in reality sacrificed.

Also, God's existence isn't about glory or power or anything like that. Family and Love are all there is.

[Changeling]

To Bee Eff:

I'm not saying there are no benefits to us or to God from what Christ did here or before. What I'm saying is that an unearned perfection for Christ and Christ alone is inconsistent with what has been revealed about how Gods become Gods, so I do not think it was unearned even though we don't have a record of how he earned it.

Of course the idea of earned perfection implies that we have an awful lot of work to do, that perfection or exaltation or godhood or whatever won't be a grace-given freebie for us either, and that's not a comforting thought to most of us.

Your comment about God's existence not being about power or glory, but about family and love, would be an interesting if tangential topic. I think you and I would find more common ground there.

[Bee Eff]

To Bee Eff:

I'm not saying there are no benefits to us or to God from what Christ did here or before. What I'm saying is that an unearned perfection for Christ and Christ alone is inconsistent with what has been revealed about how Gods become Gods, so I do not think it was unearned even though we don't have a record of how he earned it.

Of course the idea of earned perfection implies that we have an awful lot of work to do, that perfection or exaltation or godhood or whatever won't be a grace-given freebie for us either, and that's not a comforting thought to most of us.

Your comment about God's existence not being about power or glory, but about family and love, would be an interesting if tangential topic. I think you and I would find more common ground there.

It is entirely consistent. Read the arguments against God created Evil and ex nihilo creationism. The material used to create is not perfect all the time.

[MormonMason]

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?

Earth life is not the only time when there is a probation. We were tested in the premortal existence, which passing led to us being eligible for embodiment. Those who failed will be denied tabernacles. I suppose that in that probation Jesus went above and beyond the call of duty and did the Father's will flawlessly, causing the Father to give to him of his fulness long before his mortal sojourn. Godhood does not require embodiment. This sort of view is Mormon folklore rather than doctrine. However, if were to be like the Father in all ways, we need to become embodied--for God is embodied and has form and shape.

All that is required for godhood is the infusion of the Father's fulness into our spirit. We can obtain this embodied or not. Jehovah did it. The Holy Ghost did it. Others have done it, even before even coming to earth or getting their bodies back in the resurrection, such as the spirits of just men made perfect discussed in scripture.

Trying to force an abstract idea into current popular belief only leads to errors of various stripes. It is no different than what many evangelicals do to the Bible when they foist Fourth Century ideas onto First Century texts in interpreting the Bible.

[Changeling]

To Bee Eff:

Rather than me researching two seemingly tangential topics, if it's not too much trouble can you go ahead and put into your own words the arguments therein you see as supporting your position and/or refuting mine?

To MormonMason:

Okay, I very much agree that we were tested before this earth life. As you know, I could also agree that this is not our only probation. Do you think future probations are possible, or is this the last one?

Also, I agree that Godhood does not require embodiment - something that surprises me to hear from a Mormon!

I could agree that "infusion of the Father's fulness" is indeed one aspect of the next stage of human spiritual evolution, but I don't know whether that's all there is to it - I think we are also supposed to literally become like Christ, and overcome "all things".

Now if you're seeing me engage in some sort of fallacy (perhaps commonly committed by evangelicals), you'll have to be a bit more explicit and spell it out to me. I'm not always the sharpest tool in the shed.

If you don't mind my asking, what does "infusion of the Father's fulness into our spirit" mean to you? Do you have something specific in mind?

Thanks.

[MormonMason]

To MormonMason:

Okay, I very much agree that we were tested before this earth life. As you know, I could also agree that this is not our only probation. Do you think future probations are possible, or is this the last one?

Also, I agree that Godhood does not require embodiment - something that surprises me to hear from a Mormon!

I could agree that "infusion of the Father's fulness" is indeed one aspect of the next stage of human spiritual evolution, but I don't know whether that's all there is to it - I think we are also supposed to literally become like Christ, and overcome "all things".

Now if you're seeing me engage in some sort of fallacy (perhaps commonly committed by evangelicals), you'll have to be a bit more explicit and spell it out to me. I'm not always the sharpest tool in the shed.

If you don't mind my asking, what does "infusion of the Father's fulness into our spirit" mean to you? Do you have something specific in mind?

Thanks.

Once we have been resurrected, judged and exalted, there is no further probation. In between our existence as organized intelligence and the resurrection, I am sure that that are a number of probations--but not mortal probations as we only get one of those.

As to not hearing it from a Mormon as to goodhood not requiring embodiment, I read my scriptures regularly. I also read them in their original languages insofar as they are extant so I know better than to claim otherwise.

It is true that we are to overcome all things through Christ and imitate him. Yes, it really is all there is to it. Once we reach the requirements for such, that infusion can be finalized and we also will become filled with all the fulness of God. We are infused even now as we learn and grow and develop in this life by the power of the Holy Spirit, if so be that we are doing as God commands.

As to errors of the sort I mentioned I have not yet made that the focus. When I start seeing it, I will let you know. You seemed to be coming close to it though. It might have been my mistake, however. At that point I was merely pointing out that we cannot take ideas about what constitutes Godhood and how one receives it and so forth and apply such later ideas to earlier ideas in all cases. It was more a warning to be careful than anything else.

As to the meaning behind my use of "infusion of the Father's fulness into our spirit" I fully understand what I understand by it and what I mean by it. Unfortunately, I have not found words that adequately express what I understand of the process. We really do not have such words in English to express something so abstract. Maybe I might figure something out relating to quantum physics at some point and try to make sense of it in that light. I don't know how else I can do that at this point but when I do you possibly will be among the first to know.

[kamenraider]

This is interesting:

LINK

edit: I suppose that if Adam-God were true, then God could've been fully divine before his (2nd) mortal life (as Adam). I don't think that has anything to do with what Ostler has in mind, though.

[Changeling]

MormonMason, thanks for taking the time. I suspected that the phrase "infusion of the Father's fulness into our spirit" had a specific meaning, but don't pretend to understand what it is. That you evidently do is enouraging to me. I know you didn't intend the phrase to come across as indicating that you'd attained what might be called gnosis, and maybe I'm reading too much in between the lines. I certainly respect your desire to keep personal and sacred that which is personal and sacred.

Kamenraider, very interesting discussion, bringing together multiple sources (and insights) on two of Joseph's major final sermons. Thank you for the link - I bookmarked it. Your edit makes sense to me also.

[cjcampbell]

We are all gods already, though we are in a time of probation. See Psalms 82:6 and John 10:34, as well as the account of the creation given in the book of Abraham. We became gods when God, our Father, created our spirits and we began our long journey to perfection. Jesus was chosen as the Savior because He had progressed to the point where he could live a life of perfect obedience. Those who sought power over others and glory for themselves rather than obedience to God rebelled, refused to sustain Jesus Christ as the Savior, and were cast out in the pre-mortal existence. They ceased to be gods. Those who demonstrate their faith and commitment in this life and who accept the atonement of Jesus Christ through the ordinances of the gospel will go on to their exaltation and be gods forever and ever; their time of probation is over. They "go no more out." The rest, having failed their second estate, will cease to be gods. Their time of probation is also over.

Adam-God is a false doctrine. Adam had only one mortal life, just like the rest of us. We know that Adam was not Elohim, but he was instrumental in creating the earth along with Jesus Christ.

Obviously, a body is not necessary for one to be a god. The Holy Ghost is a god, yet he does not have a body. We were gods before we came to the earth -- all of us. We remain gods now. The only thing a physical body is needed for is for us to have an eternal increase and all that entails.

The answer to the question, then, is that we were all fully divine before becoming mortal. Furthermore, mortality enhances our divinity; it is not a step backward to a less divine state.

[Billy]

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!

As I (Billy) referred to in a previous post

Daniel C. Peterson states,

"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." 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."

Psalm 8:5 "thou hast made him a little lower than God" or, even, as "thou hast made him a little lower than the gods."

End reference

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

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

So you agree with DCP that Psalms 8:5 should be changed to gods but in Hebrews 2:7 it should be left as angels?

I checked the Joseph Smith Translation and it has angels in BOTH verses.

[Bee Eff]

Rather than me researching two seemingly tangential topics, if it's not too much trouble can you go ahead and put into your own words the arguments therein you see as supporting your position and/or refuting mine?

I would have a difficult time wording the response adequately.

The gist of the concept is that God cannot create imperfection. Thus, sin is not his creation. Ex nihilo creation implies that God is responsible for all imperfection and thus all sin. Given that God used already existing material, God did not create the imperfection. Imperfection was due to the fact that matter is not created or destroyed, merely altered in form. If spirits are created from existing "intelligence", and some intelligence is more pure or perfect than another, then some spirits may have been more perfect or pure than others at the point of creation. Thus, Christ being formed perfect is a result of the materials used, as well as Christ's own merit, not due to some form of favoritism.

Also, now that I have stated "favoritism", "God is no respecter of persons." This does not necessarily mean that he does not have favorites, this more probably means that all will be treated justly regardless of God's viewing them as favorites or not.

[MormonMason]

As I (Billy) referred to in a previous post

Daniel C. Peterson states,

"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." 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."

Psalm 8:5 "thou hast made him a little lower than God" or, even, as "thou hast made him a little lower than the gods."

End reference

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

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

So you agree with DCP that Psalms 8:5 should be changed to gods but in Hebrews 2:7 it should be left as angels?

I checked the Joseph Smith Translation and it has angels in BOTH verses.

Yes, I agree with DCP that Psalms 8:5 almost certainly should be translated " thou hast made him a little lower than God" or, even, as "thou hast made him a little lower than the gods." I also agree--tentatively--that Hebrews 2:7 should be translated "angels" because the Greek has angels there. The Hebrew of Psalms, on the other hand, does not have the Hebrew words for angels there, rather the word for gods or God. Hebrews 2:7 quotes from the Septuagint and the Septuagint has angels written there. However, and this is why I used the word tentative in my remarks, earlier manuscripts of the Septuagint may also have said "gods" there instead of "angels." I know that this has been the case with several fragments of the oldest manuscripts of the Septuagint I had ever seen.

One of them plainly had "sons of God" where current editions and the textform used by current Greek texts of Hebrews of the Septuagint reads "angels of God" instead. There are several other examples of the same kinds of things I have seen in the manuscripts of the Septuagint. The later manuscripts have been rewritten in places and the interesting thing is that there are portions of the New Testament manuscripts that read exactly word for word in quotations from versions of the Septuagint that did not exist in those days because the particular verses were written a century after the New Testament passages quoting from it did!

How do you suppose that happened, billy? It looks to me like some editors of the NT manuscripts may have rewritten passages in the Greek New Testament to match later editions and textforms of the Septuagint!

[Changeling]

Bee Eff, I appreciate your taking the time and making the effort. You probably saved me several hours... or more realistically, I probably wouldn't have made the effort so you taught me something I otherwise wouldn't have bothered to learn.

I think God can make mistakes, but he learns from and corrects them. Sort of like I make mistakes as I type, but (hopefully) correct them as I go and/or edit as necessary. The final result might well be a perfectly written post, but not every keystroke along the way was perfect.

God was persuaded by Abraham to accept conditions for sparing Sodom and Gomorrah, and Moses persuaded him not to kill the children of Israel. One possible interpretation here is that our God was still kinda new at this planet-management thing, and was to a certain extent learning as he went along. The way God interacted with people in the old testament, the new testament, and in recent times seems to have evolved. Yet he can be called "unchangeable" - just as when mastering a new job, I am the same person throughout the process.

I suspect that God (perhaps a plural word in this context) tries lots of different ways to develop us towards greater light and knowledge, some successful and some not. Doesn't the Book of Mormon say that God speaks to all men everywhere?

Personally, I would stop short of blaming God for sin... surprise, surprise. Actually, I don't see "sin" as much more than a mistake that calls for correction rather than damnation. I think the idea of damnation was God using a 2X4 upside our heads to get our attention.

As for our God using imperfect material... hmmm... you may have a good point there. I'll have to mull that one over a bit.

Do you think there's something like "perfect but still developing and progressing?" Or, does "perfect" imply "no room for progression"?

Thanks.

[Darth_Bill]

In relation to the OP, I think Ostler was correct. He does believe it. Whether that is the truth is something else. I view the mortal life of the Father as something akin to Jesus'. I can't get past God in Abraham declaring that he was more intelligent than they all. Because of this, I can't see the Father as ever being a "mere" human. His exaltation is inherent. It just "is". We however, need the probation and the atonement for him to elevate us.

[oceanblue]

We are all gods already, though we are in a time of probation. See Psalms 82:6 and John 10:34, as well as the account of the creation given in the book of Abraham. We became gods when God, our Father, created our spirits and we began our long journey to perfection. Jesus was chosen as the Savior because He had progressed to the point where he could live a life of perfect obedience. Those who sought power over others and glory for themselves rather than obedience to God rebelled, refused to sustain Jesus Christ as the Savior, and were cast out in the pre-mortal existence. They ceased to be gods. Those who demonstrate their faith and commitment in this life and who accept the atonement of Jesus Christ through the ordinances of the gospel will go on to their exaltation and be gods forever and ever; their time of probation is over. They "go no more out." The rest, having failed their second estate, will cease to be gods. Their time of probation is also over.

Adam-God is a false doctrine. Adam had only one mortal life, just like the rest of us. We know that Adam was not Elohim, but he was instrumental in creating the earth along with Jesus Christ.

Obviously, a body is not necessary for one to be a god. The Holy Ghost is a god, yet he does not have a body. We were gods before we came to the earth -- all of us. We remain gods now. The only thing a physical body is needed for is for us to have an eternal increase and all that entails.

The answer to the question, then, is that we were all fully divine before becoming mortal. Furthermore, mortality enhances our divinity; it is not a step backward to a less divine state.

Man is this all a fun read. I can't believe how fully one can diminish the word "God". Each post drags it further and further down.

It makes me think of the times I've called Joseph Smith "Joe". Mormons tend to take offense to this and I've learned to not do so. I never meant it as offensive - just shorthard. But Mormons respect not only the man, but the supreme nature of his calling on Earth.

But how supreme is that calling? He was a prophet? Well...so am I, right? At least - I have the potential to be a prophet. He was president of the church? So what? We all are. Every one of us. Potentially that is. So why don't we call ourselves President of the LDS church? Because we're not!

Different? We're talking calling as opposed to nature or essense? OK. I saw that coming.

So we're all Gods because we're all divine in nature? All eternal. All fetus Gods.

Bee suggested we're Gods today like a child is "human", even if he's young. But while a child is human, he's not an adult human. He's a child. Even if it's possible to one day be an adult. He's not. He's a child. Just because a child might one day run and jump and go to college, etc. doesn't mean he/she is anything more than a child currently. The other kicker is that if a child continues to live and grow - he becomes an adult. If a child God (you and I) continue to live and grow we might become adult Gods....we might not. We might end up 2 kingdoms down. Still a God? Always a God? God but with none of the attributes or powers of a God? How in the world is that a God?

Good thing we don't call anyone "doctor" just because they're studying to be one. We only call someone "doctor" once they're really a doctor. Twould diminish the very word if we threw it out to anyone who simply had the hopes to be one. Or even to those who didn't....but happened to be human. We're ALL doctors! Or not.

To me a "God" is a "God" - not a human who thinks he might one day be a God.

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

I also see the disagreement between Brigham and Orson as the two somewhat speaking past each other. I believe there is a middle ground where both views can be reconciled. Seems they were conflicted over the actual definition of God, though there was interesting room for both, imo.

[LifeOnaPlate]

To me a "God" is a "God" - not a human who thinks he might one day be a God.

What if godhood denotes familial relationships?

[Bee Eff]

Do you think there's something like "perfect but still developing and progressing?" Or, does "perfect" imply "no room for progression"?

That depends on the implications of developing and what is meant by progressing.

I believe God is perfect and complete in every way. God progresses and develops through his offspring. Thus, he is glorified through Christ, who is glorified through his service to mankind, his brothers and sisters. God progresses and develops in the same manner that I do, as my children have grown through adulthood and reflect well on my wife and I.

Christ progressed and developed by gaining a physical form and growing, by completing the mission that the Father had given him.

[Bee Eff]

Man is this all a fun read. I can't believe how fully one can diminish the word "God". Each post drags it further and further down.

Read your Bible: "being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Philippians 2:6)

This thread in no manner diminishes God. God is so awesome that He created children. His crowning achievement is that we are gods, and may become like Him. Those that diminish God are those that claim God did no such thing.

[MormonMason]

Man is this all a fun read. I can't believe how fully one can diminish the word "God". Each post drags it further and further down.

* * *

To me a "God" is a "God" - not a human who thinks he might one day be a God.

There are many who are called gods and there are many gods and many lords. Paul at least said so, anyway.

The nature of God cannot be diminished by his sharing it with his children. I am sorry that your version of God is so weak and powerless and finite that he cannot share of his own nature without diminishing himself. I have found that many have a version of God who is weak as water because if one takes out of the pool a cup of water the pool is diminished.

But our God is a consuming fire! As Justin Martyr before me believed about God, fire can be taken and used to kindle other fires without ever diminishing the original flame. Hippolytus considered spreading the nature of God in the following light:

And God called man His likeness from the beginning, and has evinced in a figure His love towards thee. And provided thou obeyest His solemn injunctions, and becomest a faithful follower of Him who is good, thou shall resemble Him, inasmuch as thou shall have honour conferred upon thee by Him. For the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish ought of the divinity of His divine perfection; having made thee even God unto His glory.

For Hippolytus, this becoming God begins with baptism. Just thought you should know.

Perhaps it is time for you to find a new belief system?

[oceanblue]

Read your Bible: "being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Philippians 2:6)

This thread in no manner diminishes God. God is so awesome that He created children. His crowning achievement is that we are gods, and may become like Him. Those that diminish God are those that claim God did no such thing.

*yawn*

What the Bible says seems to have little weight in this discussion. We spend thread after thread tearing the Bible apart. We believe this part of it. We don't another. We take such and such parts literally. Not others. I can't see how "The Bible says this!!!" should be expected to mean anything to anyone - especially one who does NOT take it literally.

I still say if you're a God, right now, I'm a doctor. And I'd be happy to perform your next open heart double bypass.

[oceanblue]

What if godhood denotes familial relationships?

Fine. "God" can denote whatever you'd like it to. What I'm suggesting is that by saying you and I and everyone else on this planet are right now Gods splits you pretty wide from any traditional belief system and, IMO, completely erases any majesty that the word has.

If you want to say "God just means we can someday become like God", I will says that's peachy keen...but I need a new word for the fully realized, fully developed "God" Gods, if that's the case. Maybe I can just say God, when I'm talking about myself, and GOD, when I'm talking about our Father in Heaven.

[MormonMason]

Fine. "God" can denote whatever you'd like it to. What I'm suggesting is that by saying you and I and everyone else on this planet are right now Gods splits you pretty wide from any traditional belief system and, IMO, completely erases any majesty that the word has.

If you want to say "God just means we can someday become like God", I will says that's peachy keen...but I need a new word for the fully realized, fully developed "God" Gods, if that's the case. Maybe I can just say God, when I'm talking about myself, and GOD, when I'm talking about our Father in Heaven.

There is no majesty in the word "God", there only is majesty in the Person who is Eternal God of all Gods. "God" is just a word in the English language that can carry quite a depth of meaning and can refer to a great many things.

[cjcampbell]

To me a "God" is a "God" - not a human who thinks he might one day be a God.

Jesus Christ thought differently, and said so. We are not potentially gods. We are gods. The fact that we now have the veil in front of us and cannot see our complete divine nature has nothing to with it.

If we could see ourselves as God sees us, as divine beings that we would be inclined to worship, I think we would treat each other a lot differently. You see it as denigrating God. I see it as elevating man.

[oceanblue]

Jesus Christ thought differently, and said so. We are not potentially gods. We are gods. The fact that we now have the veil in front of us and cannot see our complete divine nature has nothing to with it.

If we could see ourselves as God sees us, as divine beings that we would be inclined to worship, I think we would treat each other a lot differently. You see it as denigrating God. I see it as elevating man.

I do understand what you are all saying. When I look at my little 2 year old daughter I see not only a toddler, but all that she could be someday. All that she will be someday. But as I said before, she still is a toddler. If I call her an "adult", I'm either misusing the word or assigning attributes to her that, while I hope she one day has, she currently does not. Hence the two words: child and adult. We are children. God is an adult. Even if we are both "divine" in nature, if that is to be believed, who can deny the major separation between what we are today vs. what God is today? One is a God. The other, even if a God in training, is not a "God". Yes, yes....one can say it all they want. I will leave it that it's an inappropriate use of the word unless you open up the term to include anyone and everyone. And if you do that - what's the point?