Did Joseph Smith Restore Theosis?

[zerinus]

You can't discuss this without first nailing down what is the Mormon doctrine concerning theosis.

A. Man can become a god (God?) someday. This means he will act just like Heavenly Father, governing over some sort of planet system with spirit children that will be born physically into their planets, and pray to this Man who became God, and these thousands or millions or billions of spirit children on this planet (or planets) will treat this Man/God as though he is the supreme being with only casual understanding of other Gods who may be at a higher level. It's unknown to what the Man/God to original Heavenly Father relationship will be like, but it's assumed the Man/God will be somewhat autonomous.

B. Man can become a god (absolutely not a God) someday. This means not much more than enjoying the Celestial Kingdom with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and other loved ones, remaining subservient and ever worshiping God as the supreme being. We may continue to create spirits and extend our family, but it's unknown how this will happen, and it will remain in the same structure as our Earthly families, with Heavenly Father clearly being the God of these families.

Big, big difference between these two. I think you'd have a big fight on your hands if you tried to get an entire class of Gospel Doctrine or High Priests to agree on which one we believe. Like Pres. Hinckley said we don't really know.

It's not a stretch to say Joseph restored the B doctrine, although you might have trouble showing it was ever lost. I think it would be a huge stretch to imply the A doctrine is taught anywhere in the bible and the doctrine is now restored.

Your “scenarios” are bogus. You don’t tell the Church what the doctrine is; the Church tells you. The Lord has spelled out what deification in LDS theology entails:

D&C 76

:

54 They are they who are the

church of the Firstborn

.

55 They are they into whose hands the Father has

given all things

—

56 They are they who are

priests and kings,

who have

received of his fulness, and of his glory;

57 And are

priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son

.

58 Wherefore, as it is written,

they are gods, even the sons of God

—

59 Wherefore,

all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s

.

60 And they shall

overcome all things

.

61 Wherefore, let no man glory in man, but rather

let him glory in God, who shall subdue all enemies under his feet

.

62 These shall

dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever

.

63 These are they whom he shall

bring with him, when he shall come in the clouds of heaven to reign on the earth over his people

.

64 These are they who shall have

part in the first resurrection

.

65 These are they who shall

come forth in the resurrection of the just

.

66 These are they who are

come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly place, the holiest of all

.

67 These are they who have

come to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of Enoch, and of the Firstborn

.

68 These are they whose

names are written in heaven, where God and Christ are the judge of all

.

69 These are they who are

just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant,

who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood.

70 These are they whose

bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun,

even the glory of God, the highest of all

,

whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.

92 And thus we saw the glory of the celestial, which excels in all things—where

God, even the Father, reigns upon his throne forever and ever;

93 Before whose throne

all things bow in humble reverence, and give him glory forever and ever

.

94 They who dwell in his presence are the church of the Firstborn; and they

see as they are seen, and know as they are known, having received of his fulness and of his grace;

95 And he

makes them equal in power, and in might, and in dominion

.

D&C 84

:

37 And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father;

38 And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore

all that my Father hath shall be given unto him

.

39 And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood.

40 Therefore, all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father,

which he cannot break, neither can it be moved

.

D&C 132

:

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

.

37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

Nothing further need be added to or taken away from what the Lord has revealed.

Edited August 7, 2011 by zerinus

[robuchan]

Your “scenarios” are bogus. You don’t tell the Church what the doctrine is; the Church tells you. The Lord has spelled out what deification in LDS theology entails:

D&C 76

:

54 They are they who are the

church of the Firstborn

.

55 They are they into whose hands the Father has

given all things

—

56 They are they who are

priests and kings,

who have

received of his fulness, and of his glory;

57 And are

priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son

.

58 Wherefore, as it is written,

they are gods, even the sons of God

—

59 Wherefore,

all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s

.

60 And they shall

overcome all things

.

61 Wherefore, let no man glory in man, but rather

let him glory in God, who shall subdue all enemies under his feet

.

62 These shall

dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever

.

63 These are they whom he shall

bring with him, when he shall come in the clouds of heaven to reign on the earth over his people

.

64 These are they who shall have

part in the first resurrection

.

65 These are they who shall

come forth in the resurrection of the just

.

66 These are they who are

come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly place, the holiest of all

.

67 These are they who have

come to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of Enoch, and of the Firstborn

.

68 These are they whose

names are written in heaven, where God and Christ are the judge of all

.

69 These are they who are

just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant,

who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood.

70 These are they whose

bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun,

even the glory of God, the highest of all

,

whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.

92 And thus we saw the glory of the celestial, which excels in all things—where

God, even the Father, reigns upon his throne forever and ever;

93 Before whose throne

all things bow in humble reverence, and give him glory forever and ever

.

94 They who dwell in his presence are the church of the Firstborn; and they

see as they are seen, and know as they are known, having received of his fulness and of his grace;

95 And he

makes them equal in power, and in might, and in dominion

.

D&C 84

:

37 And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father;

38 And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore

all that my Father hath shall be given unto him

.

39 And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood.

40 Therefore, all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father,

which he cannot break, neither can it be moved

.

D&C 132

:

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

.

37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

Afraid to take a stand?

[zerinus]

Afraid to take a stand?

No, just telling it as the Lord has revealed it. I don't believe in adding to or taking away from what the Lord has revealed.

Edited August 7, 2011 by zerinus

[mfbukowski]

It's because you said "I asked a local pastor once about if it was fair that Billy Graham receive the same reward", and it was easy to make the jump with 'reward' meaning 'salvation' - a point which you didn't clarify. Did you mean something else beyond Salvation as the object of the reward being recieved in that statement?

This thread is about exaltation. We are talking about rewards here, not salvation. They are two different words, two different concepts. Remember the idea that we are saved by grace, rewarded according to our works?

Two different things. I don't know how anyone could confuse them.

I think it is perfectly clear. I was talking about works

Matt 16

27For the ^aSon of man shall come in the ^bglory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall ^creward every man according to his ^dworks.

So the question was, with the two men, is it fair that each be rewarded equally? Is that clear enough?

Edited August 7, 2011 by mfbukowski

[robuchan]

No, just telling it as the Lord has revealed it. I don't believe in adding to or taking away from what the Lord has revealed.

You take the same tactic Peterson took in the original article.

I guess when our spokesmen refuse to clarify our doctrine Mormons shouldn't complain when outsiders misinterpret them.

[zerinus]

You take the same tactic Peterson took in the original article.

I am not sure that he did.

I guess when our spokesmen refuse to clarify our doctrine Mormons shouldn't complain when outsiders misinterpret them.

The verses I had quoted were intended to do just that—to clarify it.

[David T]

This thread is about exaltation. We are talking about rewards here, not salvation. They are two different words, two different concepts. Remember the idea that we are saved by grace, rewarded according to our works?

Two different things. I don't know how anyone could confuse them.

I think it is perfectly clear. I was talking about works

Matt 16

So the question was, with the two men, is it fair that each be rewarded equally? Is that clear enough?

I'll let Rob answer for himself, but I believe he - and many evangelicals - do believe that faithful and diligent individuals in the faith will be granted additional 'rewards' in the afterlife some way that is independent from Salvation, although I'm not exactly clear in exactly what way that is. As such, it might be a moot question.

Edited August 8, 2011 by nackhadlow

[mfbukowski]

I'll let Rob answer for himself, but I believe he - and many evangelicals - do believe that faithful and diligent individuals in the faith will be granted additional 'rewards' in the afterlife some way that is independent from Salvation, although I'm not exactly clear in exactly what way that is. As such, it might be a moot question.

Then it becomes a question of degree, not a question of justice. If it is just that some receive a higher reward, where does one draw the line?

What kinds of rewards might those be? "Closer" to the throne? More of a godlike nature? A bigger mansion? Any idea? Surely it is not literally seen as a "crown" is it?

[Bernard Gui]

No it's not easy to understand. If I don't know which you mean, Scenario A or B, than it's most definitely not clear.

I feel no obligation to accept your scenarios. The DP manual spells it out clearly. What part don't you understand?

And if you're reticent to take a stand A or B, then something's weird.

I stand with the manual. That's what Mormons believe...it's an official publication and teaching manual for all members

of the church.

This is an example of why a lot of people don't trust apologists. They're intentionally unclear and whether they mean it or not, they come across disingenuous.

How can you call me disingenuous when I show you exactly what the church teaches? No comprendo.

Bernard

Edited August 8, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

Regarding rewards in heaven, I found this interesting:

http://www.thewordte...s_in_heaven.htm

2Jo 1:8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.

This verse is talking about rewards and not salvation. You cannot loose your salvation. But this verse teaches that you can lose your rewards.

It says to look to yourselves so that you don’t lose the things that you have wrought. So that you can receive a full reward.

If you are not careful you can have a full reward laid up and then get careless during the last years of your life and lose those things which you have wrought.

And when Jesus comes you will not get what you would have had coming.

So the distinctions are beginning to blur.

It appears that both Evangelicals and Mormons believe that we are saved by grace, and rewarded according to our works. Ain't that interesting?

Again, it becomes a question of what ARE those rewards for EV's? What would constitute a "reward" for someone already in heaven?

We have a question of degree- how high can these rewards go?

Edit: Another article on various crowns to be received- no metaphysical definitions of what constitutes these "crowns".

It seems to me that this is a flaw in the theology if it is admitted that there are rewards but there is no definition of how far they extend and the benefits of receiving them. It seems that the answer to that is unknown. If indeed the answer is unknown, one might conclude that these crowns could include theosis- who knows if they are not defined or limited?

Edited August 8, 2011 by mfbukowski

[ldsfaqs]

I asked a local pastor once about if it was fair that Billy Graham receive the same reward as a life-long drunk and child murderer who had suddenly, days before his death, become "saved".

He said that some receive "jewels in their crown" (he said which were symbols) of a higher reward than others. And then he said "but that is about all we know about it"

John 17 seems so clear to me, I can't imagine how one would misinterpret it.

Which is pretty much the LDS doctrine of "Kingdoms of Glory" and many "Mansions" in the Fathers house.

In this idea, ideologically speaking we more or less believe the same, it's just the details are different, the principle is the same, of course they don't want to admit it.

[Hannah Rebekah]

Mr. Bukowski,

I can tell you this: Billy Graham would not have a problem with this at all. But you have misunderstood something, and in quite a revealing way. Billy Graham does not view salvation as a "reward" that he will receive for his good life. He views salvation as a gift of mercy to someone who doesn't deserve anything good from God. Give him the opportunity, and Billy Graham will gladly talk to that despicable criminal in his last days on earth and urge him to accept the free gift of eternal life that Jesus Christ died to give him.

No need to imagine; examples of people misinterpreting it are quite close at hand.

Mr. Bowman,

What pray tell would you say about the rapist murderer who accepted the free gift of eternal life that Jesus Christ died to give him but the woman who he killed is relegated to h*** because her life was cut short and never did or never had the chance to accept Christ? I do have a problem with this. This murderer did not give mercy to his victim yet she is the one going to h***. It is you that has misunderstood what Jesus Christ is all about.

Editing because I wanted to add this link that some may find interesting about how some Evangelicals (I guess) view rewards...or as this one describes them, "crowns."

How To Win Your Crowns

(that sure sounds like works to me....just saying)

Edited August 8, 2011 by Hannah Rebekah

[robuchan]

I feel no obligation to accept your scenarios. The DP manual spells it out clearly. What part don't you understand?

I stand with the manual. That's what Mormons believe...it's an official publication and teaching manual for all members

of the church.

How can you call me disingenuous when I show you exactly what the church teaches? No comprendo.

Bernard

OK, so what's your take on the following:

1. The fact that after showing me the quotes, I couldn't honestly peg you down as believing in either Scenario A or B.

2. The fact that members of the church who firmly believe the quotes you reference, some believe firmly in Scenario A and are offended by Scenario B calling it a weak, faithless doctrine and some believe firmly in Scenario B calling scenario A speculative and blasphemous. Good members, honest in heart, truly seeking to follow God and the living prophet fall into both camps.

Do you see any of this as problematic?

[Bernard Gui]

1. The fact that after showing me the quotes, I couldn't honestly peg you down as believing in either Scenario A or B.

You need to peg down your A or B to what was stated in the manual.

2. The fact that members of the church who firmly believe the quotes you reference, some believe firmly in Scenario A and are offended by Scenario B calling it a weak, faithless doctrine and some believe firmly in Scenario B calling scenario A speculative and blasphemous. Good members, honest in heart, truly seeking to follow God and the living prophet fall into both camps.

Do you see any of this as problematic?

No. If they are good members, the will receive their reward.

Bernard

[Mansquatch]

You can't discuss this without first nailing down what is the Mormon doctrine concerning theosis.

A. Man can become a god (God?) someday. This means he will act just like Heavenly Father, governing over some sort of planet system with spirit children that will be born physically into their planets, and pray to this Man who became God, and these thousands or millions or billions of spirit children on this planet (or planets) will treat this Man/God as though he is the supreme being with only casual understanding of other Gods who may be at a higher level. It's unknown to what the Man/God to original Heavenly Father relationship will be like, but it's assumed the Man/God will be somewhat autonomous.

B. Man can become a god (absolutely not a God) someday. This means not much more than enjoying the Celestial Kingdom with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and other loved ones, remaining subservient and ever worshiping God as the supreme being. We may continue to create spirits and extend our family, but it's unknown how this will happen, and it will remain in the same structure as our Earthly families, with Heavenly Father clearly being the God of these families.

Big, big difference between these two. I think you'd have a big fight on your hands if you tried to get an entire class of Gospel Doctrine or High Priests to agree on which one we believe. Like Pres. Hinckley said we don't really know.

It's not a stretch to say Joseph restored the B doctrine, although you might have trouble showing it was ever lost. I think it would be a huge stretch to imply the A doctrine is taught anywhere in the bible and the doctrine is now restored.

C. None of the above

[thesometimesaint]

Saemo:

Actually we are children of God the Father and through adoption we become the children of Christ.

I have no problem with Grace. But Grace isn't a free pass to do anything I want and still be in Heaven. "We are saved by Grace, after all we can do".

[robuchan]

C. None of the above

I find these responses entertaining, though that wasn't my intent in jumping in on this thread.

I'm not laying a trap for anyone.

As a faithful LDS, I was taught scenario A and believed that for a while, then evolved into a view of Scenario B. I think either can be defended as true Mormon doctrine. And either can be railed on as false doctrine. I think most likely most LDS believe Scenario A, but Scenario B seems to be picking up steam, and the specifics are discussed so little that the younger generation is likely to believe B. But that's just my guess.

If you're going to defend the doctrine, it's worthless unless you're willing to define it.

[Mansquatch]

I find these responses entertaining, though that wasn't my intent in jumping in on this thread.

I'm not laying a trap for anyone.

As a faithful LDS, I was taught scenario A and believed that for a while, then evolved into a view of Scenario B. I think either can be defended as true Mormon doctrine. And either can be railed on as false doctrine. I think most likely most LDS believe Scenario A, but Scenario B seems to be picking up steam, and the specifics are discussed so little that the younger generation is likely to believe B. But that's just my guess.

If you're going to defend the doctrine, it's worthless unless you're willing to define it.

I didn't think it a trap but merely a false dichotomy since I fully agree with neither answer.

[saemo]

Saemo:

Actually we are children of God the Father and through adoption we become the children of Christ.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavens,

4

as he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blemish before him. In love

5

he destined us for adoption to himself through Jesus Christ, in accord with the favor of his will,

6

for the praise of the glory of his grace that he granted us in the beloved. (Eph. 1:3-6)

I have no problem with Grace. But Grace isn't a free pass to do anything I want and still be in Heaven. "We are saved by Grace, after all we can do".

I don't think you understood what I wrote.

Edited August 8, 2011 by saemo

[mfbukowski]

I don't think you understood what I wrote.

We don't speak Catholic very well unfortunately.

And I am not kidding. The terminology is so different it is hard to communicate.

[Cobalt-70]

You can't discuss this without first nailing down what is the Mormon doctrine concerning theosis.

A. Man can become a god (God?) someday. This means he will act just like Heavenly Father, governing over some sort of planet system with spirit children that will be born physically into their planets, and pray to this Man who became God, and these thousands or millions or billions of spirit children on this planet (or planets) will treat this Man/God as though he is the supreme being with only casual understanding of other Gods who may be at a higher level. It's unknown to what the Man/God to original Heavenly Father relationship will be like, but it's assumed the Man/God will be somewhat autonomous.

B. Man can become a god (absolutely not a God) someday. This means not much more than enjoying the Celestial Kingdom with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and other loved ones, remaining subservient and ever worshiping God as the supreme being. We may continue to create spirits and extend our family, but it's unknown how this will happen, and it will remain in the same structure as our Earthly families, with Heavenly Father clearly being the God of these families.

Big, big difference between these two. I think you'd have a big fight on your hands if you tried to get an entire class of Gospel Doctrine or High Priests to agree on which one we believe. Like Pres. Hinckley said we don't really know.

It's not a stretch to say Joseph restored the B doctrine, although you might have trouble showing it was ever lost. I think it would be a huge stretch to imply the A doctrine is taught anywhere in the bible and the doctrine is now restored.

Joseph Smith taught B, although Smith never taught that you could "create spirits." According to Smith, spirits are co-eternal with God, and cannot be either created or destroyed. They became children of God because God, more advanced than they, stood among them, organized them, and raised them to a higher level of intelligence.

Scenario B, and the idea that billions of spirit children would be "born" by the gods' polygamous wives, is the product of Brigham Young, although Young believed that our God (the one we call Heavenly Father) was Adam.