Did Joseph Smith Restore Theosis? Part Two: The New Testament

[Rob Bowman]

All,

Part Two of my series critiquing Dan Peterson's recent article on Joseph Smith and theosis has now been posted on Parchment and Pen. It focuses on the question of whether the New Testament supports the belief that Joseph Smith's doctrine of exaltation was a restoration of lost or forgotten truth, and responds specifically to Dan's citation of Romans 8:17 and Revelation 3:21.

I invite you to leave comments on the P&P blog, but of course feel free to respond here as well.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

All,

Part Two of my series critiquing Dan Peterson's recent article on Joseph Smith and theosis has now been posted on Parchment and Pen. It focuses on the question of whether the New Testament supports the belief that Joseph Smith's doctrine of exaltation was a restoration of lost or forgotten truth, and responds specifically to Dan's citation of Romans 8:17 and Revelation 3:21.

I invite you to leave comments on the P&P blog, but of course feel free to respond here as well.

I think I will offer a comment or 2 or 7.

God has not always been God; it is not true that he has been God from all eternity (though he may have existed from all eternity, he has not always existed as God).

I am aware of no scripture that talks about this. In LDS theology God has always been God in the same way the Jesus has always been God. There was never a time that he was not a God. See John 5:9

God was once a man like us before becoming God our Heavenly Father.

This is not true. See my previous comments.

God became God and is an exalted man, an exalted being.

This is also not true. See my previous comments.

Human beings are the spirit offspring of God, our Heavenly Father. We lived in heaven with God before becoming physical beings here on earth.

Correct.

We became human beings precisely so that we would have the opportunity to attain exaltation just as God did.

Partly true, Just remove the phrase "just as God did."

Human beings can become “gods” in the sense of becoming exalted beings fully like Heavenly Father in all essential respects, just as he did before us.

All true but "just as he did before us."

As exalted beings or gods, we can become creators and have all the power, glory, dominion, and knowledge that God the Father has (in the worlds we create).

This is speculated on, but for the sake of discussion lets just say this is official.

I hope this helps.

[robuchan]

I think I will offer a comment or 2 or 7.

I am aware of no scripture that talks about this. In LDS theology God has always been God in the same way the Jesus has always been God. There was never a time that he was not a God. See John 5:9

This is not true. See my previous comments.

This is also not true. See my previous comments.

Correct.

Partly true, Just remove the phrase "just as God did."

All true but "just as he did before us."

This is speculated on, but for the sake of discussion lets just say this is official.

I hope this helps.

Thanks for taking a stance on this. It seems so many people are afraid to. It's interesting you are fine with one part of the Lorenzo Snow couplet but not the other. Not criticizing it. I think there are many ways to look at it.

Question though: if you accept the part about man becoming God and creating worlds and everything, those people on those worlds who look at their God, they would say our God used to be a man like us. So in their case, the Lorenzo Snow couplet would be true in both directions. So if that's the pattern, why would you not back apply the same pattern to our God?

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

I am aware of no scripture that talks about this. In LDS theology God has always been God in the same way the Jesus has always been God. There was never a time that he was not a God. See John 5:9

I agree that no scripture (not even any LDS scripture) affirms that God was not always God or that he was a man who became a God. Nevertheless, this was Joseph Smith's doctrine, and it is LDS doctrine, as I documented in my piece. The fact is that Mormon theology is not confined to what can be shown from scripture, not even from the LDS expanded canon of the four Standard Works. There are other examples of this phenomenon, such as the Mormon doctrine of a heavenly mother.

[Storm Rider]

Thanks for taking a stance on this. It seems so many people are afraid to. It's interesting you are fine with one part of the Lorenzo Snow couplet but not the other. Not criticizing it. I think there are many ways to look at it.

Question though: if you accept the part about man becoming God and creating worlds and everything, those people on those worlds who look at their God, they would say our God used to be a man like us. So in their case, the Lorenzo Snow couplet would be true in both directions. So if that's the pattern, why would you not back apply the same pattern to our God?

If I read the Snow couplet, could you please explain how Jesus became man like me and then was glorified by the Father and sits at his right hand? Christians do believe that Jesus was man and is now God, or is that an error?

[altersteve]

Mola,

You wrote:

I agree that no scripture (not even any LDS scripture) affirms that God was not always God or that he was a man who became a God. Nevertheless, this was Joseph Smith's doctrine, and it is LDS doctrine, as I documented in my piece. The fact is that Mormon theology is not confined to what can be shown from scripture, not even from the LDS expanded canon of the four Standard Works. There are other examples of this phenomenon, such as the Mormon doctrine of a heavenly mother.

It is LDS doctrine that God passed through mortality, just as Jesus Christ did, and that He was "like us" in that sense, but the idea that God was once not God is not doctrine and not officially taught by the Church, although some Church leaders have taught it (yes, there is a difference). And the doctrine of Heavenly Mother comes from modern revelation. You forget that for us it does not need to be in the scriptures in order for it to be doctrine.

[thesometimesaint]

altersteve:

"And the doctrine of Heavenly Mother comes from modern revelation".

CFR

[Rob Bowman]

altersteve,

You wrote:

It is LDS doctrine that God passed through mortality, just as Jesus Christ did, and that He was "like us" in that sense, but the idea that God was once not God is not doctrine and not officially taught by the Church, although some Church leaders have taught it (yes, there is a difference).

"Some Church leaders have taught it" is apparently now a euphemism for "our founding Prophet Joseph Smith, most of the succeeding prophets, and our official doctrinal instructional materials have taught it." Sorry, but it is accepted doctrine officially taught by the LDS Church in its official doctrinal teaching materials. Why are you running away from Joseph Smith's understanding of God?

You wrote:

You forget that for us it does not need to be in the scriptures in order for it to be doctrine.

You apparently forgot what I wrote right after you read it--assuming you read the whole post. Here is what I said:

"The fact is that Mormon theology is not confined to what can be shown from scripture, not even from the LDS expanded canon of the four Standard Works."

How you can say that I forgot that it does not need to be in the scriptures to be doctrine for Mormons is beyond me. That is exactly what I said! If anyone forgot this, it was Mola, not me!

[altersteve]

altersteve,

You wrote:

"Some Church leaders have taught it" is apparently now a euphemism for "our founding Prophet Joseph Smith, most of the succeeding prophets, and our official doctrinal instructional materials have taught it." Sorry, but it is accepted doctrine officially taught by the LDS Church in its official doctrinal teaching materials. Why are you running away from Joseph Smith's understanding of God?

No. The idea that God was once not God is not Church doctrine. He was not always as He is now, for He is progressing just as we are, but it is not official doctrine that He was once not God. You can say whatever you want, but we do not teach that. I am certainly not "running away from Joseph Smith's understanding of God," but thank you for your unfounded accusation. I see no conflicts between what Joseph taught and what I believe.

You apparently forgot what I wrote right after you read it--assuming you read the whole post. Here is what I said:

"The fact is that Mormon theology is not confined to what can be shown from scripture, not even from the LDS expanded canon of the four Standard Works."

How you can say that I forgot that it does not need to be in the scriptures to be doctrine for Mormons is beyond me. That is exactly what I said! If anyone forgot this, it was Mola, not me!

Sorry, I accidentally missed that part. My mistake.

[David T]

Why are you running away from Joseph Smith's understanding of God?

I don't view it as much as running from as running with. It is clear that there were concepts Joseph viewed as inspired anchors, to which he built logical explanations and conclusions around. A large part of his discourses and Temple preparation appear, to me, very much attempts to work out a new understanding of God based on what he had learned. I'm not convinced all of his conclusions were correct. His mind was firmly focused on preparations for the Kingdom of God, and the role of dynastic families within that celestial hierarchy of Kings and Priests was a key intellectual framework from which he was approaching aspects of God.

Rob, have you read Brown and Stapley's papers on Adoption Theology and Ritual in early Mormonism that were published in the latest Journal of Mormon History?

I'm convinced more and more that God continually grants divine deposits of information to the Church leadership, and then leads us (the Church) to work it out and seek to understand its significance until we are prepared to ask the right questions, and accept the answers when they come. A huge part of the revelatory and learning process to guide humanity is study, practice, trial and error.

Some may be uncomfortable with a God who doesn't dictate and explain in certain terms interesting doctrinal treatises. I love that it's a process of learning and moving forward - progressive (or evolutionary) revelation, where humanity as a whole is working and progressing through school. And some times, individual members of the class are ready even though the class itself (and even some of the Teacher's Aids) aren't to that point yet.

I love the understanding of there being a difference between Revelation and the attempts to understand and express that revelation that we have presented as scripture. This makes scripture highly valuable for its power of giving a framework of practical application and instruction. I think the Lord leaves it up to us, through our attempts to practice the scriptures in our life, to weed out the flawed philosophy and logic of the human messengers, and approach more clearly the raw truth behind it all. All scripture should be tried and applied, in my opinion.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

You wrote:

I agree that no scripture (not even any LDS scripture) affirms that God was not always God or that he was a man who became a God. Nevertheless, this was Joseph Smith's doctrine, and it is LDS doctrine, as I documented in my piece. The fact is that Mormon theology is not confined to what can be shown from scripture, not even from the LDS expanded canon of the four Standard Works. There are other examples of this phenomenon, such as the Mormon doctrine of a heavenly mother.

I am aware of that. I am aware also that some people choose to interpret certain things to imply that God was not always divine. LS' couplet is one such example. If one keeps in mind how LS arrived at that thought JS' KFD, and the scripture that JS used to back up his idea, you soon realise that neither person is talking about how God gained his "godhood". I reject such a notion and affirm that it is not taught any were in the LDS doctrine.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

I am aware of that. I am aware also that some people choose to interpret certain things to imply that God was not always divine. LS' couplet is one such example. If one keeps in mind how LS arrived at that thought JS' KFD, and the scripture that JS used to back up his idea, you soon realise that neither person is talking about how God gained his "godhood". I reject such a notion and affirm that it is not taught any were in the LDS doctrine.

Unfortunately, in deciding whom to believe as to what LDS doctrine is, I have to choose believing what Joseph Smith, various other named LDS prophets, LDS Church doctrinal manuals, and other recognized LDS publications say, and believing what an anonymous person online using the handle "Mola Ram Suda Ram" says. Without in any way impugning your significance as a person, it really isn't a hard choice.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

You wrote:

Rob, have you read Brown and Stapley's papers on Adoption Theology and Ritual in early Mormonism that were published in the latest Journal of Mormon History?

My hard copy just came in the mail today.