Knowledge And Deification

[volgadon]

In LDS thought, knowledge of God, who and what he is, has long been considered essential for deification.

Of the kinship between God and man, Joseph Smith taught, "If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves" (TPJS, p. 343). "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another" (TPJS, p. 345). Echoing his first vision, the Prophet taught what he called the "great secret": "If the veil were rent today, and…God…[were] to make himself visible,…if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form-like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man" (TPJS, p. 345).

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/King_Follett_Discourse

Although the implications aren't followed through to their logical conclusion, I found a similar idea expressed (and negated) in a bit of Hasidic folklore collected by Jerome Mintz in New York, published on pp. 418-419 of his 1968 "Legends of the Hasidim." The story was told by X, a Bobover Hasid, a schoolteacher by trade. The tale itself is a variant on the theme of animals being taught to act like humans yet revert inevitably to their true nature.

Some people claim that any animal can be taught to act like a man. The Rambam (Maimonides) argues that they can't. A cat is found, taught to walk on two legs, eat with a fork, and wear a suit.The Rambam releases a mouse on the table and the cat, forgetting all that it was taught, runs after it.

The tale is meant to illustrate the following principle.

They once asked the Rambam, "What is God?"

He answered, "If I knew what God is I would be God."

[Freedom]

I am not clear to what you are getting at.

[volgadon]

What I am getting at is that knowledge of God is key to becoming as God.

Edited November 20, 2011 by volgadon

[Nominee]

Would you say to know God is to understand Him?

[volgadon]

Would you say to know God is to understand Him?

As opposed to knowing things about God? Yes, naturally.

Why do you ask?

[KevinG]

That dovetails nicely with one of my favorite sections of the D&C

http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93?lang=eng

Thanks for sharing it.

[Honorentheos]

I believe it was Bruce R. McKonkie who said that to know God was to think what God thinks and feel what God feels.

While a believer, I found thoughts along these lines very interesting.

[Honorentheos]

To add to the above- during a spring cleaning event early this year, I discovered a binder in which I had collected many of the notes I took as a missionary. Among these notes from various Sacrament meetings, zone conferences, and a multitude of other meetings was a collection of thoughts I had jotted down on various gospel topics. It was prefaced with a thought about how each represented a branch of the gospel that was worthy of consideration by itself, yet it was important to step back and recognize their inter-relatedness. There is a reference to the Gospel of John and Christ being the true vine, etc., and then the following scriptures -

Quote:

D&C 84:19-22 "And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.

20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.

21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live."

Quote:

Moroni 7:30 "For behold, they (meaning angels) are subject unto him, to minister according to the word of his command, showing themselves unto them of strong faith and a firm mind in every form of godliness."

Quote:

D&C 19:10 "For behold! the mystery of Godliness, how great it is!"

There are various personal thoughts I included after this, some of which I still found interesting, others very naïve of more expansive LDS theology. But there is an unmistakable thought process in these notes that I find interesting - I firmly believed that, as Bruce R. McConkie said, "To know God is to think what God thinks, and to feel what God feels" and that this was something that could be achieved in mortality to some extent, even if it had to be perfected through the processes of resurrection.

Reading Volgadon's OP left me considering - how do most LDS on the boards view the transformation of wo/man, as God/ess-in-embryo, into Godhood? Are the traits of God something that most view must be developed through practice and persistent effort in mortality? or are they to be bestowed on a person when they have crossed a threshold? Like having posted so many times, regardless of content, on a message board maybe?

Since rediscovering this, I have found myself contrasting my previous mormon view with other religious concepts I have since become familiar with regarding what may be called "exaltation" in some form or other.

For example, I have always been subtly drawn to the ideas in zen regarding enlightenment and how it manifests in a person. One story that I loved, even as a mormon, was this one -

Quote:

Anyone walking about Chinatowns in America will observe statues of a stout fellow carrying a linen sack. Chinese merchants call him Happy Chinaman or Laughing Buddha.

This Hotei lived in the T'ang dynasty. He had no desire to call himself a Zen master or to gather many disciples about him. Instead he walked the streets with a big sack into which he would put gifts of candy, fruit, or doughnuts. These he would give to children who gathered around him in play. He established a kindergarten of the streets.

Whenever he met a Zen devotee he would extend his hand and say: "Givewme one penny." And if anyone asked him to return to a temple to teach others, again he would reply: "Give me one penny."

Once he was about his play-work when another Zen master happened along and inquired: "What is the significance of Zen?"

Hotei immediately plopped his sack down on the ground in silent answer.

"Then," asked the other, "what is the actualization of Zen?"

At once the Happy Chinaman swung the sack over his shoulder and continued on his way.

This imagery, of Hotei swinging his sack over his shoulder and continuing on his way always felt powerful to me. Many similar stories from multiple faith traditions have a similar influence on my thinking about purpose and "right thought, right action".

In practical matters, there seems to be much that could be learned from many faith's views about life's purpose when the dogma is removed.

Yet in matters of exaltation, the outcomes for the Mormon vs. the Buddhist are strikingly different. For the Mormon, the result seems to be a heightened individuality and separateness. As I understand it God/esses are men and women of holiness, separated from common or natural things. In Buddhism, the result is the opposite - the breaking of the karmic cycle leads to the dissolution of the (false?) boundaries that appear to separate all things back into their true nature. In a sense, it appears to be the opposite of godhood, because it is singularity rather than exaltation. Or so it seems. Yet the Gospel of John also speaks of "becoming one" and coming to know God in some way that appears to transcend knowing of Him. Maybe there is a similarity there after all?

So along Volgadon's OP and the couple of questions that followed: Would you consider the underlying idea in Volgadon's Op the purpose of exaltation? and if so, though on may not know God yet (or else one would be God as the OP said) how would you describe Godhood in the broad outlines you currently see?

And, ultimately, how would this process of coming to know God manefest in a person if they were well on the path in mortality?

[Nominee]

As opposed to knowing things about God? Yes, naturally.

Why do you ask?

I have to work on a lesson about The Millennium tonight so I will not be able to put any decent amount of time into this right now but I intend to think on it.

I asked because the first thoughts to come to mind for me were, well, similar to those expressed by Honorentheos . I am thinking that to know God is to understand ~understand how he thinks and feels and why. I do believe that knowledge of God is key to becoming as God. This immediately took me to our mortality, the purpose of life, the fall of Adam, and the knowledge of good and evil. It is all for us to understand and become as God.

[Calm]

For the Mormon, the result seems to be a heightened individuality and separateness. As I understand it God/esses are men and women of holiness, separated from common or natural things. In Buddhism, the result is the opposite - the breaking of the karmic cycle leads to the dissolution of the (false?) boundaries that appear to separate all things back into their true nature. In a sense, it appears to be the opposite of godhood, because it is singularity rather than exaltation. Or so it seems. Yet the Gospel of John also speaks of "becoming one" and coming to know God in some way that appears to transcend knowing of Him. Maybe there is a similarity there after all?

I don't see a separation at all, but a much greater unity. God is aware of all, the separation is not his, but ours. We have lost our awareness of him and of others, but this awareness will be restored and added to, no longer seeing through a glass darkly, knowing as we are known.

[HeatherAnn]

...though on may not know God yet (or else one would be God as the OP said) how would you describe Godhood in the broad outlines you currently see?

And, ultimately, how would this process of coming to know God manefest in a person if they were well on the path in mortality?

God is LOVE. When we love, we know God.

Love is HOPING & striving for what is BEST through trial & error (faith).

The process of coming to know God/GOoD/What is BEST... is "line upon line" learning "good news" (often preceded by bad news that the old way no longer works).

[volgadon]

So along Volgadon's OP and the couple of questions that followed: Would you consider the underlying idea in Volgadon's Op the purpose of exaltation?

You can't become something without knowing what it is, so without knowing God, that is, what he values, how he reacts and interacts, then of course you can't become like God.

[Nominee]

Wouldn't mortality and what it offers through human emotion, for example, play a good role in this? When I do as God teaches and experience the emotional reaction attached to those choices, as with service unto others, I learn why God is who He is and why he reacts and interacts as he does. Cause and effect. When the goodness comes, the goodness is enjoyed; when enjoyed, repeated. And this is a form of evolution wherein one is to become as God.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Nominee

[Nominee]

I just thought to add that the emotional reaction is just one example used to make the point. It, of course, works in harmony with all other aspects of any experience and the way they help us to understand and know God.

[wenglund]

What I am getting at is that knowledge of God is key to becoming as God.

Agreed. Since God is eternal life, then as John of old recorded (Jn 17:3: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

However, to underscore Nominees point, I see a reciprocal relationship between knowing and become. In other words, not only is knowledge of God key to becoming as God, but the process of becoming as God is key to knowing God. Through personally experiencing godliness, we come to know God.

Paul hints at this in 1 Cor. 13:

⁸Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

⁹For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

¹⁰But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

¹¹When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

¹²For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 21, 2011 by wenglund

[Honorentheos]

Interesting scripture to add, Wade. It's one that I continue to hold in high regard. I think in light of the direction the discussion has taken, it's worth quoting more of it -

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

²And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

³And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

⁴Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

⁵Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

⁶Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

⁷Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

⁸Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

...

¹³And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

These are the parts you did not quote. In them, I find interesting thoughts on what seems to matter in regards to becoming "like God". In particular, consider verse 2 above.

If the point of exhaltation is to "think what God thinks and feel what God feels", and so far we seem to have a broad consensus on the idea that much of this has to do with loving one's neighbor then my question - what role is the church (and for argument's sake I would add "at it's best") play in this process? Because I could see argument in the above chapter of scripture that make a case against becoming too strongly affiliated with an organizational belief or group.

[Honorentheos]

You can't become something without knowing what it is, so without knowing God, that is, what he values, how he reacts and interacts, then of course you can't become like God.

Thank you, Volgadon. I'm curious if you have any thoughts on the last question in my post? That being - How would this knowledge manefest itself in a person who was well on their way down this path?

[Nominee]

Hmmm. It was brought to my attention, just today, that when it is said "I am nothing" it is not to say we have no meaning or worth (as we are the children of God) but rather to remind us that we are dependant upon our Heavenly Father.

1 Corinthians 13:2~

And though I have the gift of ^aprophecy, and understand all ^bmysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

2 Nephi 26:30~

Behold the Lord hath forbidden this thing; wherefore, the Lord God hath given a commandment that all men should have charity, which ^bcharity is ^clove. And except they should have charity they were nothing. Wherefore, if they should have charity they would not suffer the laborer in Zion to perish.

1John 4:16~

And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that ^adwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Nominee

[wenglund]

If the point of exhaltation is to "think what God thinks and feel what God feels"...

To me, the point of exaltation is for us to become Gods, which entails, in part, becoming one in mind and heart with God.

...and so far we seem to have a broad consensus on the idea that much of this has to do with loving one's neighbor then my question - what role is the church (and for argument's sake I would add "at it's best") play in this process? Because I could see argument in the above chapter of scripture that make a case against becoming too strongly affiliated with an organizational belief or group.

I am not sure what "too strongly affiliated" may mean to you, but I would think that this wonderful passage may reasonably engender a broad range of extrapolated perceptions about organizational affiliation, each that would be tangential to the topic of this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nominee]

For me, the point of exhaltation is to be with God. The purpose of life is to learn to be with God.

1Nephi 10:21

Wherefore, if ye have sought to do ^awickedly in the days of your ^bprobation, then ye are found ^cunclean before the judgment-seat of God; and no unclean thing can dwell with God; wherefore, ye must be cast off forever.

D&C 88:22

For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Nominee

[mfbukowski]

To add to the above- during a spring cleaning event early this year, I discovered a binder in which I had collected many of the notes I took as a missionary. Among these notes from various Sacrament meetings, zone conferences, and a multitude of other meetings was a collection of thoughts I had jotted down on various gospel topics. It was prefaced with a thought about how each represented a branch of the gospel that was worthy of consideration by itself, yet it was important to step back and recognize their inter-relatedness. There is a reference to the Gospel of John and Christ being the true vine, etc., and then the following scriptures -

Quote:

D&C 84:19-22 "And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.

20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.

21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live."

Quote:

Moroni 7:30 "For behold, they (meaning angels) are subject unto him, to minister according to the word of his command, showing themselves unto them of strong faith and a firm mind in every form of godliness."

Quote:

D&C 19:10 "For behold! the mystery of Godliness, how great it is!"

There are various personal thoughts I included after this, some of which I still found interesting, others very naïve of more expansive LDS theology. But there is an unmistakable thought process in these notes that I find interesting - I firmly believed that, as Bruce R. McConkie said, "To know God is to think what God thinks, and to feel what God feels" and that this was something that could be achieved in mortality to some extent, even if it had to be perfected through the processes of resurrection.

Reading Volgadon's OP left me considering - how do most LDS on the boards view the transformation of wo/man, as God/ess-in-embryo, into Godhood? Are the traits of God something that most view must be developed through practice and persistent effort in mortality? or are they to be bestowed on a person when they have crossed a threshold? Like having posted so many times, regardless of content, on a message board maybe?

Since rediscovering this, I have found myself contrasting my previous mormon view with other religious concepts I have since become familiar with regarding what may be called "exaltation" in some form or other.

For example, I have always been subtly drawn to the ideas in zen regarding enlightenment and how it manifests in a person. One story that I loved, even as a mormon, was this one -

This imagery, of Hotei swinging his sack over his shoulder and continuing on his way always felt powerful to me. Many similar stories from multiple faith traditions have a similar influence on my thinking about purpose and "right thought, right action".

In practical matters, there seems to be much that could be learned from many faith's views about life's purpose when the dogma is removed.

Yet in matters of exaltation, the outcomes for the Mormon vs. the Buddhist are strikingly different. For the Mormon, the result seems to be a heightened individuality and separateness. As I understand it God/esses are men and women of holiness, separated from common or natural things. In Buddhism, the result is the opposite - the breaking of the karmic cycle leads to the dissolution of the (false?) boundaries that appear to separate all things back into their true nature. In a sense, it appears to be the opposite of godhood, because it is singularity rather than exaltation. Or so it seems. Yet the Gospel of John also speaks of "becoming one" and coming to know God in some way that appears to transcend knowing of Him. Maybe there is a similarity there after all?

So along Volgadon's OP and the couple of questions that followed: Would you consider the underlying idea in Volgadon's Op the purpose of exaltation? and if so, though on may not know God yet (or else one would be God as the OP said) how would you describe Godhood in the broad outlines you currently see?

And, ultimately, how would this process of coming to know God manefest in a person if they were well on the path in mortality?

Oh no. I am responding to you.

You cannot become a doctor unless you know what a doctor is.

On one hand, exaltation is very individual, obviously. But even dogmatically, "you cannot get there without your wife".

We have two opposing forces- individuality and becoming one with the "other" - and then we have the patriarchal order and church of the Firstborn- as Daddy has pointed out- where all are mankind are sealed as one.

So there you have the self in unity with multiplicity.

Now if that ain't a koan, I don't know what is!

Edit: Please don't say "But that's not what Mormons believe!"

Edited November 21, 2011 by mfbukowski

[KevinG]

[mfbukowski]

God is LOVE. When we love, we know God.

Love is HOPING & striving for what is BEST through trial & error (faith).

The process of coming to know God/GOoD/What is BEST... is "line upon line" learning "good news" (often preceded by bad news that the old way no longer works).

Perichoresis

Perichoresis is a Greek term used to describe the triune relationship between each person of the Godhead. It can be defined as co-indwelling, co-inhering, and mutual interpenetration. Alister McGrath writes that it “allows the individuality of the persons to be maintained, while insisting that each person shares in the life of the other two. An image often used to express this idea is that of a ‘community of being,’ in which each person, while maintaining its distinctive identity, penetrates the others and is penetrated by them.” ^[1]

Perichoresis in application

Glory

The New Testament demonstrates that God brings glory to himself. John’s Gospel is important in understanding how Jesus and the Father relate; a key passage for a perichoretic understanding of God’s glory is John 17:1, where Jesus prays, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you.” We see that the Son brings glory to the Father, the Father brings glory to the Son, and the Spirit brings glory to the Son (cf. John 16:14). Such an understanding of glory exhibits the love expressed within the Godhead by Father, Son and Spirit as they give glory to each other.

http://www.theopedia.com/Perichoresis

....And US!

This is not a Mormon site.

Sound familiar, y'all?

Edited November 21, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Honorentheos]

Oh no. I am responding to you.

I admit, I'm a bit surprised myself.

You cannot become a doctor unless you know what a doctor is.

<snip>

Now if that ain't a koan, I don't know what is!

I'm still curious about how a person who is well along on the path would be recognizeable.

I'm assuming that we agree we can, in some small measure, come to "know God" in this life and become as He is to some extent. Maybe we don't?

If so, it seems reasonable that a person who had progressed along those lines might stand out in some way. I'm curious to hear yours, or others, thoughts on the specifics of this.

Edit: Please don't say "But that's not what Mormons believe!"

To be fair, you're confusing me with other people. My particular schtick with you was to say, "This contradicts what you said 4 pages ago in post 239..." Or bring up same-sex marriage. Don't worry, I'm not in a frame of mind to argue with you on points.

I'm just curious about how LDS posters today view Volgadon's OP. In some ways, I wonder how much of the process of gaining exhaltation influences people's day-to-day beliefs? or is it something left to vague sayings and concepts? For example, I appreciate the idea that "God is love" and to become like him requires coming to know Him as in your doctor analogy. Yet, is that really saying anything meaningful or is it like a bad koan - open to interpreation without a Master to point out when the response requires deeper thought? If you are familiar with Buddhist koans and related stories on meditating on them then you would also be familiar how many times the student comes forward with some brilliant idea only to be rebuffed by their teacher and sent back to ponder. It seems most require years to come to answers that are acceptable.

So far, I've heard some vague ideas but nothing that's struck me as particularly insightful. Perhaps you could point out where I am wrong in this assessment and why?

Edited November 23, 2011 by Honorentheos

[volgadon]

Someone who is well along the way would radiate that in their bearing towards others. Some people truly are Christlike.