How many LDS deities?

[todd520]

Disagree.

Joseph Smiths later theology, including the KFD, is a massive improvement of the labyrinthine ball of confusion called the Trinity.

The LDS doctrine of Deification fills in a huge theological knowledge gap.

I really like the LDS Godhead over the teaching of the Trinity but the basic doctrine of deification is very Christian, with Theosis taught by the ECF.

It's just unfortunate that most present day Christians don't know their teachings, especially Catholics. Theosis is explicit in the Catechism

[Calm]

Can we apply this reasoning to other things given what sounds convenient?

I am not making any claims here, just suggesting we need to be cautious.

That is a very confusing revelation if he is talking about the future.

How so?

[mapman]

The LDS view is that God the Father is the same kind of being as us. We are all children of our Heavenly Father and Mother, including Jesus Christ and Lucifer. We have been described as being "gods in embryo". Even Jesus said, "ye are gods." (John 10:34) So it is really depends on what you mean by Gods and deities. As has been said, we only pray to the Father, but we also worship Jesus Christ. We don't know as much about the Holy Ghost and even less about Heavenly Mother, but I think that it would be accurate to describe them as Gods and deities. As for those who become exalted and become Gods, it isn't really clear to me whether that has been going on already or will happen in the future.

The King Follet Sermon is here if you are interested.

[Calm]

That's what I'd been thinking, but I hear different things from different people. I'm still working out the reasons for saying one thing or another and the reasons behind either of the claims.

That was what I thought, but again, I hear different things sometimes.

Missed this earlier.

I think the way individuals define our style of worship is primarily dependent on what they see as primary importance in the relationship OR they are defining our form of worship not by its own qualities, but by what is similar or lacking in other forms with which they want to (dis)associate our form of worship.

When I am asked how I see it, I always ask in what context are you asking....

[mmmcounts]

Go ahead.

We've all done this dance many times.

All right, let's dance....Five Six Seven Eight!

I would say Christians worship Jesus Christ. Kind of like the Wise Men did in Matthew 2. Did I get the steps right?

[Calm]

The LDS view is that God the Father is the same kind of being as us. We are all children of our Heavenly Father and Mother, including Jesus Christ and Lucifer. It has been described as us being "gods in embryo". Even Jesus said, "ye are gods." (John 10:34) So it is really depends on what you mean by Gods and deities. As has been said, we only pray to the Father, but we also worship Jesus Christ. We don't know as much about the Holy Ghost and even less about Heavenly Mother, but I think that it would be accurate to describe them as Gods and deities. As for those who become exalted and become Gods, it isn't really clear to me whether that has been going on already or will happen in the future.

The King Follet Sermon is here if you are interested.

Exactly...my belief. And I don't think we can claim anything further as doctrinal at this point, though we could state some beliefs are implied.

[mmmcounts]

Lucifer is described as high among the councils of God, but I don't know if he is identified as second in greatness to Christ...my memory says he is not.

the Book of Moses describes the relationship of intelligences, God tells Moses that he is among the great ones...but I don't know of any ranking save that God is above all (now whether that is God the Father or God the Son speaking is sometimes debated).

Is the Book of Moses the Torah, or is it something different?

[Obiwan]

None, God the Father is the the one true God. We believe that there is other gods, we even believe that Heavenly Father has a Heavenly Father (who is unnamed). But for our worship there is only one God, our Heavenly Father.

Just as a point of clarification, LDS have no "doctrine" on whether the Father had a Father. An "infinite regression of Gods" is an idea some have postulated and some believe, but the actual doctrine of the Church is that we existed as "intelligences" and then became spirits, having always existed. This would likely preclude the idea that the Father had a Father, because the Father is the "Most High God", and there is no other as the scriptures state. LDS theology is actually silent on anything pre-Father if there even is such a thing.

So, it's not accurate to say this is LDS theology. Some LDS speculation and popular belief with some in the Church yes, but not actual theology.

[Calm]

That is really good! You just helped me understand a ton about LDS theology.

If you really want to understand LDS theology, the most efficient and accurate way (to be sure you are not getting personal interpretations) is to read the Gospel Principles manual, very quick, very easy, has links to appropriate scriptures, shouldn't take more than a couple of hours for the whole thing, an hour or less for specifics about God and pre and postmortality teachings.

See here: http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=02df1f7962d43210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=d7561b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

For this topic, I would read up through Chapter 8 and then Chapter 40 till the end. Since each chapter is only a few pages of loosely packed text with scriptures and questions frequently embedded, I can usually read one chapter five minutes. For someone not familiar with the content, probably would take double that time, longer if one reads the scriptures as well.

[mmmcounts]

I really like the LDS Godhead over the teaching of the Trinity but the basic doctrine of deification is very Christian, with Theosis taught by the ECF.

It's just unfortunate that most present day Christians don't know their teachings, especially Catholics. Theosis is explicit in the Catechism

What paragraph?

[Obiwan]

Why all the beating around the bush?

The answer is 2 Gods. There are 2 LDS deities - HF and JC.

Because that is a false statement that is why.

There is only ONE GOD, and that is the Father.

Christ is an agent of the Father as is the Holy Ghost. These beings may be Gods in their own right as we are also gods, but their worship and reverence is only because they are agents of the Father. Our worship and Focus is on the Father, not any other "God". Christ himself made clear in the Bible that there is only one we are to worship, and that is the Father.

Obviously, there is a lesser type of worship of Christ and the Holy Spirit, but such is only because of what they do and have done, which is from their own service to the Father on His behalf, not because of who they are alone.

[Calm]

That sounds a whole lot like Hinduism. Or, at least, a lot like what a nice Hindu guy explained to me on a different forum.

That is like saying that capitalism is like communism because both hold in common certain principles of economics. Anything can sound like something else if one disregards context completely and only focuses on one similarity.

On another note, I found it quite interesting that Joseph Campbell identified the division between Eastern and Western theology as stemming from the concept of God's relationship to Man. Eastern theology does not separate God from Man (very simplistically stated), Western has an unbridgeable gap between Creator and Created (in Campbell's view). It seems to me that LDS theology**** is a bridge between the two and thus may be most similar to the original understanding prior to the split of the three position.

*****God is the Creator and we as spirit and mortal men are his creations, but we also are part of his literal eternal family (first as coexisting as intelligences and then as his spirit children), not just 'adopted' or only potentially sharing in a limited number of God's attributes.

[mmmcounts]

If you really want to understand LDS theology, the most efficient and accurate way (to be sure you are not getting personal interpretations) is to read the Gospel Principles manual, very quick, very easy, has links to appropriate scriptures, shouldn't take more than a couple of hours for the whole thing, an hour or less for specifics about God and pre and postmortality teachings.

See here: http://lds.org/ldsor...0004d82620aRCRD

For this topic, I would read up through Chapter 8 and then Chapter 40 till the end. Since each chapter is only a few pages of loosely packed text with scriptures and questions frequently embedded, I can usually read one chapter five minutes. For someone not familiar with the content, probably would take double that time, longer if one reads the scriptures as well.

Ok, thanks very much!

[cion]

Because that is a false statement that is why.

There is only ONE GOD, and that is the Father.

Christ is an agent of the Father as is the Holy Ghost. These beings may be Gods in their own right as we are also gods, but their worship and reverence is only because they are agents of the Father. Our worship and Focus is on the Father, not any other "God". Christ himself made clear in the Bible that there is only one we are to worship, and that is the Father.

Obviously, there is a lesser type of worship of Christ and the Holy Spirit, but such is only because of what they do and have done, which is from their own service to the Father on His behalf, not because of who they are alone.

Are you telling me the creator of the earth is not a God? Just a measly agent, like one of us? Is not Christ EVERYTHING in the world of Christianity?

What is the big deal? Why the trouble with 2 Gods? Does it sound scary or something?

[Calm]

I really like the LDS Godhead over the teaching of the Trinity but the basic doctrine of deification is very Christian, with Theosis taught by the ECF.

It's just unfortunate that most present day Christians don't know their teachings, especially Catholics. Theosis is explicit in the Catechism

But not identical to how LDS view it. I think we need to be sure and include that qualifier when discussing this topic.

[Calm]

Is the Book of Moses the Torah, or is it something different?

Sorry, thought you knew....Pearl of Great Price, one of the LDS scriptures. I'll provide a link to the relevant scripture.

Oops, it was Abraham: http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/3.21?lang=eng#20

BTW, if you are interested in this topic from the LDS POV, I encourage you to read the Book of Moses and Abraham in the PoGP.

[mmmcounts]

That is like saying that capitalism is like communism because both hold in common certain principles of economics. Anything can sound like something else if one disregards context completely and only focuses on one similarity.

Such is the nature of comparisons. Which is something you just made, btw. Me associating a religious statement with Hinduism is like you comparing my association with a comparison of communism to capitalism, although I would have preferred that you compare my association with something that made a little more sense. It think that would have better suited my original association. For example, you might have said "That is like saying ideals that include public ownership and cooperative management of production hold much in common with a description of socialism." I would have like that a little better.

On another note, I found it quite interesting that Joseph Campbell identified the division between Eastern and Western theology as stemming from the concept of God's relationship to Man. Eastern theology does not separate God from Man (very simplistically stated), Western has an unbridgeable gap between Creator and Created (in Campbell's view). It seems to me that LDS theology**** is a bridge between the two and thus may be most similar to the original understanding prior to the split of the three position.

Hmmmm. I've looked into Eastern and Western theology on its own terms, and while I did see a lot of contrasting elements throughout, I didn't see anything indicating a no-separation view and an unbridgeable-gap view. Who's Joseph Campbell? Is he an expert in early patristics or something like that?

[Calm]

There is only ONE GOD, and that is the Father.

While not a common usage, calling Christ "God the Son" occurs in LDS writings, here is a link to it being used by one of the Apostles: http://lds.org/ensig...anding?lang=eng (he identifies the Holy Ghost as God as well)

But how is that possible? How can Jesus Christ be both the Father and the Son? It really isn

[Calm]

Who's Joseph Campbell? Is he an expert in early patristics or something like that?

He studied the world's religious belief systems, past and present: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell

[blueadept]

What paragraph?

Two sentences in a gigantic book

460

The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

I'll defer to 3DOP or soren for a proper Catholic understanding of "theosis" as based on the given reference.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Just as a point of clarification, LDS have no "doctrine" on whether the Father had a Father. An "infinite regression of Gods" is an idea some have postulated and some believe, but the actual doctrine of the Church is that we existed as "intelligences" and then became spirits, having always existed. This would likely preclude the idea that the Father had a Father, because the Father is the "Most High God", and there is no other as the scriptures state. LDS theology is actually silent on anything pre-Father if there even is such a thing.

So, it's not accurate to say this is LDS theology. Some LDS speculation and popular belief with some in the Church yes, but not actual theology.

So we disregard the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young about the gods because you disagree with it?

It isn't doctrine because it is unsure or could be false. It is taught in the Church and the reason why it is not Church doctrine is because there is too much unknown about the nature of the gods to set anything in stone. Without further revelation (which will come when God decides to reveal it) we cannot have a doctrine only a teaching.

This is the same argument that another thread uses again Heavenly Mother, she is taught about but without further revelation to define her nature and purpose there is not doctrine.

[mmmcounts]

Two sentences in a gigantic book

I'll defer to 3DOP or soren for a proper Catholic understanding of "theosis" as based on the given reference.

Ok, thanks for the ref. Now that I looked for it, I see it has been discussed in a couple of threads in Catholic forums. I've seen them in passing, but I didn't go in and look in-depth. I'm neither Mormon nor Catholic, so I was never super interested. I had heard that Mormons were doing pretty well with converting Catholics, though, and I guess that has a lot to do with it. Thanks for pointing me to that.

[blueadept]

Ok, thanks for the ref. Now that I looked for it, I see it has been discussed in a couple of threads in Catholic forums. I've seen them in passing, but I didn't go in and look in-depth. I'm neither Mormon nor Catholic, so I was never super interested. I had heard that Mormons were doing pretty well with converting Catholics, though, and I guess that has a lot to do with it. Thanks for pointing me to that.

I've met a few LDS missionaries who were once upon a time a Catholic. I haven't been impressed with their working knowledge of Catholicism...

My father was raised Mormon prior to his Catholic conversion. I'm not impressed with his working knowledge of Mormonism either...

There's converts in both directions.

[mmmcounts]

Hey everybody, thank you very much for interacting with me as much as you did. I have to go now, though- just letting everyone know so you aren't waiting for a response from an absent thread-starter. Apologies for making over 25 new posts all at once; I got excited because I was finally able to start a thread. Thanks for all the discussion; I got as much out of what you said to each other as what you said to me. I'll try to settle it down a little going forward here so I don't pass over important things. Still need to look at a few resources too. I'll get caught up later; let me know if you need me to do anything for you. I apologize for anything I missed on the first run. Thanks for the great discussion and insights!

[todd520]

For the curious, here is the relevant Catholic teaching, from the Catechism, explaining why Christ became flesh

(edit - sorry, i missed blueadepts post of the same text.)

I. WHY DID THE WORD BECOME FLESH?

Paragraph 460

• The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":
• "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."
• "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.
• "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.
  

As noted by others, the Catholic belief in Theosis is not the same as Exaltation,

However, they both share the fundamental teaching that "we might become God"

edit to add

When any of you read the King Follett Discourse, you should remember that it contains errors. It was compiled from audience notes and was not a published speech in the modern sense. To me this implies I can trust the major themes and teachings to be accurate, but I don't trust every turn of phrase. Something could have been misspoken or recorded incorrectly by the people taking notes (no tape recorders). J Smith died shortly after this speech was given