Can Women Become Goddesses?

[TAO]

I have always been taught the Trinitarian view. In LDS doctrine, it seems that Jesus Christ has a, I don't know, somewhat lesser role? Even though the first verse that I quoted seems to say otherwise. I am new to all of this, and it is confusing to me.

I could see how you would see this, and yes, I guess he does have a lesser role, since some of the things Trinitarianism assigns to him, we assign to the Father. But in my eyes, it doesn't really make him less valuable, if you know what i mean... to me, it makes him seem more personal, and more willing to relate to me =). I like having a God whom I can talk with and love =D.

[Lareliw]

I agree about the talk to and love, even though I have difficulty with prayer sometimes, I do enjoy it I guess this is the hardest part for me to see/understand/overcome, is the Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and exaltation. I think that I understand what it is said to be, like the doctrine on it, but I don't "understand" it if you know what I mean? It doesn't click in my head, doesn't make sense, makes me feel confused. Us being "equal" with Jesus Christ doesn't feel correct to me I guess. Keep reading, keep learning, keep praying, keep discussing

I could see how you would see this, and yes, I guess he does have a lesser role, since some of the things Trinitarianism assigns to him, we assign to the Father. But in my eyes, it doesn't really make him less valuable, if you know what i mean... to me, it makes him seem more personal, and more willing to relate to me =). I like having a God whom I can talk with and love =D.

[TAO]

I agree about the talk to and love, even though I have difficulty with prayer sometimes, I do enjoy it I guess this is the hardest part for me to see/understand/overcome, is the Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and exaltation. I think that I understand what it is said to be, like the doctrine on it, but I don't "understand" it if you know what I mean? It doesn't click in my head, doesn't make sense, makes me feel confused. Us being "equal" with Jesus Christ doesn't feel correct to me I guess. Keep reading, keep learning, keep praying, keep discussing

Yes... it is a very scary doctrine to think about in a way. To know God would let you have that sorta power... it's... frightening... one almost wouldn't know what to do... it takes time to get used to.

I will tell you one thing though - we will never be equal to Jesus Christ compared to where he is at that moment. He will always have more glory than us, no matter where we go, because when we gain glory, he gains the same glory as well... his glory is bringing us to immortality and eternal life... our glory is in serving him, by doing the same for others =).

I will tell you how I sorta imagine exaltation... it's like this... you know how HF and JC have done so much for us... we will always be indebted to them for it, and will always serve them for it. Exaltation is where we get the opportunity to do for our children, what HF and JC have done for us - to lead them to happiness. A family sort of thing - kind of like raising your children so they can raise their children to be good people =). And I think, Father will look upon our children as a grandparent much as grandparent's look upon children today... with such kindness, and love, and happiness... it truly is an eternal family =D. We will love our children, and our children's children, and their children as well, etc. But them having children in no way takes away from us... it makes us happier indeed! Children, grand-children, great grand-children - they all bring great joy to our lives.

[David Bokovoy]

I agree about the talk to and love, even though I have difficulty with prayer sometimes, I do enjoy it I guess this is the hardest part for me to see/understand/overcome, is the Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and exaltation. I think that I understand what it is said to be, like the doctrine on it, but I don't "understand" it if you know what I mean? It doesn't click in my head, doesn't make sense, makes me feel confused. Us being "equal" with Jesus Christ doesn't feel correct to me I guess. Keep reading, keep learning, keep praying, keep discussing

Despite his best intentions, I'm afraid LDS Guy has made the issue much more odd than it really is. As I have illustrated, his comments do not accord with LDS scripture/theology.

Most people to whom I have introduced LDS conceptions on the Godhead have found the concept of two separate divine beings, Father and Son, much less confusing than Trinitarian philosophy. Please note, however, that in no sense does LDS doctrine place mortal men and women "equal" with the Only Begotten Son. He is our Savior and our God. Concerning his preeminence, LDS Apostle Neal A. Maxwell declared:

[WalkerW]

For us, the Savior's invitation is clear: "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne" (Revelation 3:21). This is a serious invitation, for in the world of the Bible, to receive enthronement signified deification.

"If at the beginning of the [the Book of Revelation], "the one seated on the throne" was a designation of God in contrast to the Lamb, by the end of the book the throne is described as being "the throne of God and of the Lamb" (22:1, 3). There is also a clear sharing of the same titles between God and Christ...This sharing of titles stands within Jewish agency tradition, which transferred titles to an emissary as a way of showing his authority to speak and act for the one who sent him...The examples from Revelation precisely parallel the transfer of roles and attributes between the sender and the sent, between God and his agent, that one finds elsewhere in early Jewish literature. The language and imagery used is thus well within the bounds of what one might expect to find in a Jewish context as a response to the arrival of God's eschatological redeemer. The fact that the same sharing of throne and sovereignty is explicitly said to extend to Christians as well is not without significance" (James F. McGrath, The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context, University of Illinois Press, 2009, pgs. 74-75; emphasis mine).

In reality, this is a great passage to illustrate how well LDS theology works with biblical conceptions. You are correct that the Word is Christ (see v. 14). Note, however, that the Word is "with" God. As famous non-LDS Bible scholar, F.F. Bruce explained:

[David Bokovoy]

"If at the beginning of the [the Book of Revelation], "the one seated on the throne" was a designation of God in contrast to the Lamb, by the end of the book the throne is described as being "the throne of God and of the Lamb" (22:1, 3). There is also a clear sharing of the same titles between God and Christ...This sharing of titles stands within Jewish agency tradition, which transferred titles to an emissary as a way of showing his authority to speak and act for the one who sent him...The examples from Revelation precisely parallel the transfer of roles and attributes between the sender and the sent, between God and his agent, that one finds elsewhere in early Jewish literature. The language and imagery used is thus well within the bounds of what one might expect to find in a Jewish context as a response to the arrival of God's eschatological redeemer. The fact that the same sharing of throne and sovereignty is explicitly said to extend to Christians as well is not without significance" (James F. McGrath, The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context, University of Illinois Press, 2009, pgs. 74-75; emphasis mine).

I can't recommend Daniel Boyarin's Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004) enough on the subject of the Logos.

Well done. Love the first quote, and appreciate the recommendation on the second.

[WalkerW]

Well done. Love the first quote, and appreciate the recommendation on the second.

For those interested in a preview of Boyarin's book-length research, see his "The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue of John," Harvard Theological Review 94:3 (2001).

Boyarin correctly points out,

In an astonishing convergence, however, Nicene orthodoxy also effectively "crucifies the Logos." While not ceasing to speak of the Logos, in the move to trinitarian theology within which the entire trinity is both self-contained and fully transcendent, Athanasius and his fellows insist that God alone, without mediator, without an angel, without a Logos, is the creator. Logos theology is, ultimately, as thoroughly rejected within Nicene Christianity as within orthodox rabbinism (Border Lines, pg. 139).

Boyarin explains, however, that it was the Incarnate Logos theology that distinguished Christianity from rabbinical Judaism early on. Mormonism, in my view, returns to this earlier Logos theology.

[zerinus]

I agree about the talk to and love, even though I have difficulty with prayer sometimes, I do enjoy it I guess this is the hardest part for me to see/understand/overcome, is the Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and exaltation. I think that I understand what it is said to be, like the doctrine on it, but I don't "understand" it if you know what I mean? It doesn't click in my head, doesn't make sense, makes me feel confused.

What part of Trinitarian theology makes sense to you?

Us being "equal" with Jesus Christ doesn't feel correct to me I guess. Keep reading, keep learning, keep praying, keep discussing

Who says we are "equal" with Jesus?

[WalkerW]

Any claim that deified men and women will be somehow "independent" Gods, no longer worshipping our Father in Heaven and Christ runs counter to LDS scripture. As explained in Joseph's vision regarding the Celestial Kingdom, those who enter therein "are gods, even the sons of God

[Lareliw]

I have to say, I find you incredibly enlightening and your method of answering questions is very clear and concise. I love it!

So, as you said "As John declares, the Word of God (Christ) was in the beginning "with" God the Father. He couldn't be with God, if he was God. Yet Jesus is also very much our God in his own right, hence the conclusion, "the Word was God." I can see how that would indicate a separation of beings, meaning God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate entities. But how can both be God and worshiped if they are not "the same" (trinitarian) and still keep the commandment to have no other Gods before Him?

Also we were discussing earlier about God possibly having a "God" above him and such, that really boggles me and I am not sure that I can concede to that. Even looking at John's scripture below, In the beginning (which would be creation to my interpretation of it) there was God and the Word.

Also still confused about the when we die we become gods and have our own worlds thing. As I understand it, we are resurrected and judged and we may be in an exalted state, but I am not comfortable thinking of anyone as god (with a capital or lowercase g). It seems to go against the commandments.

Clear as mud?

Despite his best intentions, I'm afraid LDS Guy has made the issue much more odd than it really is. As I have illustrated, his comments do not accord with LDS scripture/theology.

Most people to whom I have introduced LDS conceptions on the Godhead have found the concept of two separate divine beings, Father and Son, much less confusing than Trinitarian philosophy. Please note, however, that in no sense does LDS doctrine place mortal men and women "equal" with the Only Begotten Son. He is our Savior and our God. Concerning his preeminence, LDS Apostle Neal A. Maxwell declared:

[Lareliw]

I'm not saying that it makes perfect sense to me, more something that I have grown up with and have tried to reason out myself. One God, but Jesus Christ is also God, who is our Savior and Lord and we worship and praise him, and the Holy Spirit, the messenger. It is difficult to understand, but to separate them and yet say they are all distinct beings and God in their own distinct right feels a bit like polytheism to me.

What part of Trinitarian theology makes sense to you?

I didn't expand on this as much as I probably should have. I have been having a lot of conversations over the last few months with various folks, including missionaries at mormon.org. I was led to understand that we are all God's "spirit children" and Jesus was the "first" spirit child of God, and so in a way he is like our big brother. And that when we become exalted, we become "gods," gaining certain things as "joint-heirs" with Christ. I suppose I sort of took "joint-heirs" to mean some type of equal share. Its been a bit of a whirlwind trying to absorb and comprehend everything, if I am off on something please let me know and help me to understand it better

Who says we are "equal" with Jesus?

[WalkerW]

I have to say, I find you incredibly enlightening and your method of answering questions is very clear and concise. I love it!

So, as you said "As John declares, the Word of God (Christ) was in the beginning "with" God the Father. He couldn't be with God, if he was God. Yet Jesus is also very much our God in his own right, hence the conclusion, "the Word was God." I can see how that would indicate a separation of beings, meaning God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate entities. But how can both be God and worshiped if they are not "the same" (trinitarian) and still keep the commandment to have no other Gods before Him?

Also we were discussing earlier about God possibly having a "God" above him and such, that really boggles me and I am not sure that I can concede to that. Even looking at John's scripture below, In the beginning (which would be creation to my interpretation of it) there was God and the Word.

Also still confused about the when we die we become gods and have our own worlds thing. As I understand it, we are resurrected and judged and we may be in an exalted state, but I am not comfortable thinking of anyone as god (with a capital or lowercase g). It seems to go against the commandments.

Clear as mud?

I think the main problem is that you are working with a modern concept of "monotheism." See this brief article:

Paula Fredriksen, "Gods and the One God," Bible Review (Feb. 2003).

For a book length treatment of multiple deities in ancient Israel, see Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford University Press, 2001).

And in what I consider to be one of the greatest contributions to FARMS (and I mean that, David), see David Bokovoy's own "'Ye Really Are Gods': A Response to Michael Heiser concerning the LDS Use of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John," FARMS Review 19:1 (2007).

[WalkerW]

I'm not saying that it makes perfect sense to me, more something that I have grown up with and have tried to reason out myself. One God, but Jesus Christ is also God, who is our Savior and Lord and we worship and praise him, and the Holy Spirit, the messenger. It is difficult to understand, but to separate them and yet say they are all distinct beings and God in their own distinct right feels a bit like polytheism to me.

See my comment about "monotheism."

While the LDS concept of the Godhead has a better historical and scriptural case, it has its philosophical puzzles. It solves many of the Trinity's philosophical problems, but at the cost of brand new ones.

I admit that I've caricatured Trinitarian beliefs in the past, but I've come to highly respect the concept, even if I don't agree with it. I've always said that if I were to leave the LDS Church, I would be a Roman Catholic. My original and primary reason is its respect for priesthood authority, structure, liturgy, etc. But I admit that the writings of Thomas Aquinas and other Thomist-Aristotelian philosophers almost persuadest me to be a Trinitarian (but not quite ). The work of philosopher Edward Feser is quite impressive to me. I've adopted some Thomist-Aristotelian metaphysical concepts into my own theological thinking. I plan on reading David Bentley Hart's magnum opus The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth (Eerdmans, 2003) whenever I can find a copy that I don't have to buy.

I highly recommend Blake Ostler's FAIR presentation "The Fallacy of Fundamentalist Assumptions." I think he provides a clear and concise explanation of the differences between LDS and other Christian views of Deity. I have found it to be extremely helpful in interfaith discussions. A video version can be found

(just follow the links to the other parts).

[zerinus]

I'm not saying that it makes perfect sense to me, more something that I have grown up with and have tried to reason out myself. One God, but Jesus Christ is also God, who is our Savior and Lord and we worship and praise him, and the Holy Spirit, the messenger. It is difficult to understand, but to separate them and yet say they are all distinct beings and God in their own distinct right feels a bit like polytheism to me.

I think that the Mormon way of looking at it is more comprehensible than the traditional Christian way of sticking them all together. It is also more biblical. The Bible does not stick them all together. It talks about them like they are three separate beings. It is the latter Christians who stuck them together like that, and made them incomprehensible. The Bible doesn't.

[Lareliw]

I wasn't aware there was another concept of monotheism, from my understanding it is belief in a single God. I have saved the articles though I will read both of them! Hopefully within the next couple of days, tomorrow is my son's 4th birthday so we are going to my folks' house to celebrate so will be gone until evening Oh, and is there any way to know when I will be given the authority to create my own threads so I don't hijack others? I feel bad about asking questions when they are only somewhat or marginally related to the topic at hand

I think the main problem is that you are working with a modern concept of "monotheism." See this brief article:

Paula Fredriksen, "Gods and the One God," Bible Review (Feb. 2003).

For a book length treatment of multiple deities in ancient Israel, see Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford University Press, 2001).

And in what I consider to be one of the greatest contributions to FARMS (and I mean that, David), see David Bokovoy's own "'Ye Really Are Gods': A Response to Michael Heiser concerning the LDS Use of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John," FARMS Review 19:1 (2007).

[zerinus]

I wasn't aware there was another concept of monotheism, from my understanding it is belief in a single God. I have saved the articles though I will read both of them! Hopefully within the next couple of days, tomorrow is my son's 4th birthday so we are going to my folks' house to celebrate so will be gone until evening Oh, and is there any way to know when I will be given the authority to create my own threads so I don't hijack others? I feel bad about asking questions when they are only somewhat or marginally related to the topic at hand

You don't need no authority to start new threads. Click on the button at the top that says "Start New Topic," and you can start a new thread.

And by the way, your avatar is the same as somebody else who posts on this board, and confuses you with him! You might like to change it to avoid the confusion.

[Lareliw]

Great! I will most definitely view those as well. The reason I guess that Trinitarian views seem to make more sense to me is the monotheism that we have discussed, the one God. It does solve that as if they are all part of the same "God" then there is no issue! I actually was raised RC, broke away from them due to other issues (veneration of saints, mary, etc). I also love the liturgy, the solmness of mass, the beautiful hymns. I am still learning about LDS views on priesthood, and how that works, where it comes from, etc, but that is a whole other can of worms for a later time I think

I appreciate your responses, the clear and drama-free dialogue makes me very comfortable asking tough questions and asking for clarification if I do not understand, or have a different understanding. You all have been most kind.

See my comment about "monotheism."

While the LDS concept of the Godhead has a better historical and scriptural case, it has its philosophical puzzles. It solves many of the Trinity's philosophical problems, but at the cost of brand new ones.

I admit that I've caricatured Trinitarian beliefs in the past, but I've come to highly respect the concept, even if I don't agree with it. I've always said that if I were to leave the LDS Church, I would be a Roman Catholic. My original and primary reason is its respect for priesthood authority, structure, liturgy, etc. But I admit that the writings of Thomas Aquinas and other Thomist-Aristotelian philosophers almost persuadest me to be a Trinitarian (but not quite ). The work of philosopher Edward Feser is quite impressive to me. I've adopted some Thomist-Aristotelian metaphysical concepts into my own theological thinking. I plan on reading David Bentley Hart's magnum opus The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth (Eerdmans, 2003) whenever I can find a copy that I don't have to buy.

I highly recommend Blake Ostler's FAIR presentation "The Fallacy of Fundamentalist Assumptions." I think he provides a clear and concise explanation of the differences between LDS and other Christian views of Deity. I have found it to be extremely helpful in interfaith discussions. A video version can be found

(just follow the links to the other parts).

[Lareliw]

Ok I will see if I can resize a picture of my own tomorrow after the birthday bash to make it easier I just picked something I love, books!

And the "start new thread" option is grayed out for me for some reason.

Edit: And of course as soon as I post that it goes white on me I will work on all that tomorrow or the next day, it is time for me to sleep. Bless you all!

You don't need no authority to start new threads. Click on the button at the top that says "Start New Topic," and you can start a new thread.

And by the way, your avatar is the same as somebody else who posts on this board, and confuses you with him! You might like to change it to avoid the confusion.

[WalkerW]

I wasn't aware there was another concept of monotheism, from my understanding it is belief in a single God. I have saved the articles though I will read both of them! Hopefully within the next couple of days, tomorrow is my son's 4th birthday so we are going to my folks' house to celebrate so will be gone until evening Oh, and is there any way to know when I will be given the authority to create my own threads so I don't hijack others? I feel bad about asking questions when they are only somewhat or marginally related to the topic at hand

As far as I know, you can create threads now. Perhaps it is based on your number of posts. I don't know. If you are unable to, I'm more than happy to start one for you.

Read Fredriksen's article. It isn't long and will give you a foundation. "Monotheism" as moderns understand it (i.e. strict belief in absolutely one god) was not an ancient concept in any way, shape, or form. As Eastern Orthodox (and thus trinitarian) philosopher David Bentley Hart explains in his brilliant Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies (Yale University Press, 2009), the early Christian baptismal rites consisted of "a rather forcibly phrased exorcism" in which the new converts faced the west, renounced the gods and the devils of the world, and literally turned their backs on them (i.e. faced east). They then pledged complete allegiance to Christ, disrobed, were immersed by the bishop thrice, then were annointed with oil, given a new white garment, and finally participated in the Eucharist for the first time. "We are probably somewhat prone to forget that, though the early Christians did indeed regard the gods of the pagan order as false gods, they did not necessarily understand this to mean simply that these gods were unreal; they understood it to mean that the gods were deceivers" (pgs. 112-113). As the apostle Paul explained, "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him" (1 Cor. 8:5-6). Paul held the belief in other deities, supernatural entities, or "gods and lords" as he puts it. But our God is the Father and our Lord is the Son.

[TAO]

Ok I will see if I can resize a picture of my own tomorrow after the birthday bash to make it easier I just picked something I love, books!

And the "start new thread" option is grayed out for me for some reason.

Edit: And of course as soon as I post that it goes white on me I will work on all that tomorrow or the next day, it is time for me to sleep. Bless you all!

Yes, the post limit for creating new threads is 50, I think.... I think you have to have 50 posts, and then you can create new threads... although if you had a topic in mind, I could post a thread for you generally around that topic... was there something you were wondering about that you'd like a topic over?

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Lareliw,

You've raised some very important questions, too many, in fact, to be addressed in a single post. So let's break them apart a little at a time.

I'm not saying that it makes perfect sense to me, more something that I have grown up with and have tried to reason out myself. One God, but Jesus Christ is also God, who is our Savior and Lord and we worship and praise him, and the Holy Spirit, the messenger. It is difficult to understand, but to separate them and yet say they are all distinct beings and God in their own distinct right feels a bit like polytheism to me.

I believe that it's important to note that there exists all sorts of

[David Bokovoy]

I think the main problem is that you are working with a modern concept of "monotheism." See this brief article:

Paula Fredriksen, "Gods and the One God," Bible Review (Feb. 2003).

For a book length treatment of multiple deities in ancient Israel, see Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford University Press, 2001).

And in what I consider to be one of the greatest contributions to FARMS (and I mean that, David), see David Bokovoy's own "'Ye Really Are Gods': A Response to Michael Heiser concerning the LDS Use of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John," FARMS Review 19:1 (2007).

Thanks for the kinds words.

Best,

--DB

[mfbukowski]

I wasn't aware there was another concept of monotheism, from my understanding it is belief in a single God.

Perhaps it would be useful to think of it this way:

The term "God" refers to the UNITY of three different persons who have attained the status of Godhood.

They are unified in purpose and love. Think of a family- each family has their own name, for example "Jones". If you send them a card, you send it to "The Joneses" or "The Jones Family".

The scriptures tell us that "God is love". It makes no sense to say that a person is "love", but the unity of people is described as "love".

So when we use the term "God" we are speaking of the unity in love of three different persons.

It's like addressing a committee of three or a corporation, if you want to think if it that way. The word "God" is short for "Godhead"- which consists of three persons.

If you were to write a letter to General Motors- the salutation might reasonably read "Dear GM:". If you did that, you would with that one term actually be addressing thousands of people.

Just realize that perhaps in prayer if you were to say "Dear God, etc." you are actually addressing 3 persons, a family, The Godhead.

Does that help?

The whole concept of "Trinity" which makes no sense whatsoever, is just a confusion of that simple concept.

The simple fact is that "God" is a collective noun- that's all!

[Lareliw]

Would "lesser divinites" be something like the angels? I have a very difficult time with everyone saying that they are to progress to godhood when they achieve exaltation, it feels very...arrogant? Pardon if my words are a bit hard or off tonight, just got home from an entire day traveling and celebrating my oldest son's 4th birthday I am going to take a look at those articles tomorrow, and also try to find scripture that deals with this nature of God that you are describing, any pointers?

Hello Lareliw,

[Lareliw]

The point of God being short for Godhead (which I have heard spoken of before actually within the Catholic church) and that being referenced as a multiple is something I have never thought of before! I am going to let my noodle think it over

Perhaps it would be useful to think of it this way:

The term "God" refers to the UNITY of three different persons who have attained the status of Godhood.

They are unified in purpose and love. Think of a family- each family has their own name, for example "Jones". If you send them a card, you send it to "The Joneses" or "The Jones Family".

The scriptures tell us that "God is love". It makes no sense to say that a person is "love", but the unity of people is described as "love".

So when we use the term "God" we are speaking of the unity in love of three different persons.

It's like addressing a committee of three or a corporation, if you want to think if it that way. The word "God" is short for "Godhead"- which consists of three persons.

If you were to write a letter to General Motors- the salutation might reasonably read "Dear GM:". If you did that, you would with that one term actually be addressing thousands of people.

Just realize that perhaps in prayer if you were to say "Dear God, etc." you are actually addressing 3 persons, a family, The Godhead.

Does that help?

The whole concept of "Trinity" which makes no sense whatsoever, is just a confusion of that simple concept.

The simple fact is that "God" is a collective noun- that's all!