Heavenly Mother, Exaltation, And The Oneness Of The Godhead

[shalamabobbi]

CV75,

You wrote:

Then you agree with me that exalted humans cannot become one with the Father and the Son in every way, but only in some or many ways. If we agree on this much, then the rest of the discussion is about distinguishing in what ways humans can and in what ways they cannot become one with the Father and the Son.

This is an important conclusion, because it means that we can agree that John 17:20-23 does not mean that believers may become one with the Father and the Son in every way that the Father and the Son are one with each other. The text therefore cannot be treated as an obvious proof text for deification; we will need to look at the context to determine in what way Jesus meant for his disciples to be "one."

All men are mortal

Socrates is a man

Therefore Socrates is mortal

The problem with argumentation is you always assume what you are trying to prove.

Have we proved Socrates is mortal with the above argument or have we simply assumed it in the premise?

That is why the restoration rests upon the rock of revelation and the bearing of testimony as Jesus said to Peter "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

[Glenn101]

jwhitlock,

I addressed John 17 in my response to Bill Hamblin, mentioned in the thread he started about Witherington's blog.

However you may have addressed those verses, it is hard to make a case that the onesness of the Godhead is a oneness of substance. The opposite inference would more naturally be drawn. The phrase "that they may be one, as we are" most reasonably interpreted, hardly indicate that the twelve apostles are to become one in substance but one in will and purpose.

It is really a stretch to infer that if a person (Heavenly Mother) is one with Heavenly Father, the he or she must be part of the Godhead. But to say that a Heavenly Mother is one with Heavenly Father in will and purpose makes perfect sense.

Glenn

[Bart Burk]

However you may have addressed those verses, it is hard to make a case that the onesness of the Godhead is a oneness of substance. The opposite inference would more naturally be drawn. The phrase "that they may be one, as we are" most reasonably interpreted, hardly indicate that the twelve apostles are to become one in substance but one in will and purpose.

It is really a stretch to infer that if a person (Heavenly Mother) is one with Heavenly Father, the he or she must be part of the Godhead. But to say that a Heavenly Mother is one with Heavenly Father in will and purpose makes perfect sense.

Glenn

What does the term substance mean to you? Hint: The word substance in Christianity has nothing to do with anything physical. It has to do with Jesus eternal existence as God in the same way the Father is God. Edited August 30, 2012 by Bart Burk

[Rob Bowman]

jwhitlock,

You asked:

I don't see a link or a response in there addressing John 17; where did you post it?

Quite some time back, the moderators imposed a restriction on me providing a link to any of the hundreds of pages on the website of the Institute for Religious Research, where I work, because one page on the site contains temple ceremony material. Later I was not even allowed to provide a link to our blog, The Religious Researcher, which is an entirely separate website. I have never understood these restrictions (and the moderators as I recall never offered any rationale) because the forum rules specify (to this day) only that one may not provide links to temple content. Nevertheless, this is the moderators' decision, and I have acted in accordance with it by not providing hyperlinks or URLs to any of IRR's websites. Ironically, LDS posters here have been permitted to post messages in this forum criticizing IRR's website.

If you do a Google search for the title of my article, "Mormonism and Christianity: Evangelical Witherington versus Mormon Hamblin," you should have no trouble finding it. Also, you can read a much more detailed article of mine on the Parchment and Pen website (not affiliated with IRR) in which the entire post is about John 17.

[Glenn101]

What does the term substance mean to you? Hint: The word substance in Christianity has nothing to do with anything physical. It has to do with Jesus eternal existence as God in the same way the Father is God.

The same spirit.

[Rob Bowman]

Glenn,

You wrote:

However you may have addressed those verses, it is hard to make a case that the onesness of the Godhead is a oneness of substance. The opposite inference would more naturally be drawn. The phrase "that they may be one, as we are" most reasonably interpreted, hardly indicate that the twelve apostles are to become one in substance but one in will and purpose.

Obviously, you have not read what I have written about John 17. I certainly don't think the apostles were to become one in substance. The point I am making here is that the Father and the Son are "one" in some ways that human beings never will or could be. We can be one with each other and with the Father and the Son in some ways as they are, but not in all ways. John 17 is talking about being one in ways that human beings can be one, not about being one in every way that God is.

[Rob Bowman]

shalamabobbi,

You wrote:

All men are mortal

Socrates is a man

Therefore Socrates is mortal

The problem with argumentation is you always assume what you are trying to prove.

Have we proved Socrates is mortal with the above argument or have we simply assumed it in the premise?

The beauty of argumentation is that you can easily find out precisely what it is that is disputed. For example, if I am talking with someone who disputes that Socrates is mortal, I might present the syllogism above and ask him where the argument goes wrong in his view. Presumably he would reply that he doesn't agree that all men are mortal. Cool: now we know where we stand. But if he agrees with both premises, he's stuck: the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.

In my argument, I begin with premises that Mormons must concede (to be consistent with their own doctrines). One such premise is that human beings cannot become part of the Godhead. I grant that if someone rejects that premise, my argument won't work with him. I would then have to go back and try to persuade him of the truth of that premise, if I could. But if he accepts that premise, at least that part of the argument is intact.

I am not aware of any premises in my argument that Mormons reject. They all seem to agree that people cannot become part of the Godhead. They all agree that the members of the Godhead are in some sense one Godhead. Give me those two premises and the conclusion follows necessarily: there is a sense in which the members of the Godhead are "one" that cannot ever become true of people, namely, that of being one Godhead. If you don't like the conclusion, your only reasonable options are to dispute one or both of the premises or to show that there is some logical fallacy in the reasoning from the premises to the conclusion. Good luck with that.

You wrote:

That is why the restoration rests upon the rock of revelation and the bearing of testimony as Jesus said to Peter "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

Jesus was not pronouncing Simon blessed for irrationality, but for receiving the revelation that came from the Father. To use this text to justify irrationality is...well, irrational.

[Bart Burk]

The same spirit.

I don't believe that's correct. Of course traditional Christians believe spirit is immaterial. And of course it is hard for us to imagine an immaterial something because we can't touch it or see it. The term substance is more a philosophical construct meant to convey the idea the Father and the Son have the same eternal nature even though they are distinct persons. In some ways it could be said the apostles do have the same substance -- a human substance as opposed to a divine substance. I suspect we actually can in some way become one in spirit with each other, but not in this life.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Bart Burk

[Zeta-Flux]

Then you agree with me that exalted humans cannot become one with the Father and the Son in every way, but only in some or many ways.

Even the Son is not one with the Father in every way (even in the trinitarian understanding--The Father is not the Son, and vice versa).

But reading between the lines, it seems that your claim implicitly rests on the premiss that being in the Godhead makes them one in a way that they would not be otherwise. This rest on a small confusion: the term Godhead (as we apply it) only refers to their current respective positions in the hierarchy of priesthood, and not directly to an aspect of oneness. We can all enter the hierarchy. To extend the metaphor from before, we can all be members of the stake, and have callings, and be one with one another. The fact that I'm a secretary and not part of the Stake Presidency in no ways means I'm less one with the stake. But, it also doesn't mean I'm the President. I have my own role. Just as the Son is not the Father.

[shalamabobbi]

shalamabobbi,

You wrote:

The beauty of argumentation is that you can easily find out precisely what it is that is disputed. For example, if I am talking with someone who disputes that Socrates is mortal, I might present the syllogism above and ask him where the argument goes wrong in his view. Presumably he would reply that he doesn't agree that all men are mortal. Cool: now we know where we stand. But if he agrees with both premises, he's stuck: the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.

In my argument, I begin with premises that Mormons must concede (to be consistent with their own doctrines). One such premise is that human beings cannot become part of the Godhead. I grant that if someone rejects that premise, my argument won't work with him. I would then have to go back and try to persuade him of the truth of that premise, if I could. But if he accepts that premise, at least that part of the argument is intact.

I am not aware of any premises in my argument that Mormons reject. They all seem to agree that people cannot become part of the Godhead. They all agree that the members of the Godhead are in some sense one Godhead. Give me those two premises and the conclusion follows necessarily: there is a sense in which the members of the Godhead are "one" that cannot ever become true of people, namely, that of being one Godhead. If you don't like the conclusion, your only reasonable options are to dispute one or both of the premises or to show that there is some logical fallacy in the reasoning from the premises to the conclusion. Good luck with that.

You wrote:

Jesus was not pronouncing Simon blessed for irrationality, but for receiving the revelation that came from the Father. To use this text to justify irrationality is...well, irrational.

I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the origin from which this thread sprouted. Were there some LDS arguing that John 17 meant we would become part of the godhead? Theosis has lots of possible interpretations. Most LDS that I have known would use John 17 to simply illustrate that the manner in which Jesus is one with the Father is something other than being siamese twins. If that is not what the doctrine of the trinity is about, great.

Jesus was not pronouncing Simon blessed for irrationality, but for receiving the revelation that came from the Father. To use this text to justify irrationality is...well, irrational.

I am not using it to justify irrationality. It illustrates the proper (biblical) manner in which truths about the eternities are to be made known to us. Rational arguments can then be utilized to illustrate and support correct viewpoints but they are not a substitute for the living breathing spirit of revelation that is both the true source of conversion for true converts as well as the source of what occurred 2000 years ago that resulted in what remains to us of the bible itself..

[Darren10]

Rob;

If you do a Google search for the title of my article, "Mormonism and Christianity: Evangelical Witherington versus Mormon Hamblin," you should have no trouble finding it. Also, you can read a much more detailed article of mine on the Parchment and Pen website (not affiliated with IRR) in which the entire post is about John 17.

I just binged said article and found Witherington: Mormons are not Evangelicals and found two relevant comments there:

Seth R. on August 29, 2012 at 5:36 pm

said:

I’m about 2/3 of the way through Bowman’s article and feeling a little put upon by all the question-begging going on in his article about what the “Biblical” position is (I’ll give you a hint – “biblical” means “whatever Rob Bowman believes”).

And:

Kullervo on August 29, 2012 at 5:56 pmsaid:

I’m about 2/3 of the way through Bowman’s article and feeling a little put upon by all the question-begging going on in his article about what the “Biblical” position is (I’ll give you a hint – “biblical” means “whatever Rob Bowman believes”).

Amen, brother.

Heh!!!

[Maidservant]

Also the bishop and the bishop's wife are one with each other, as to their marriage, but when he goes to do his bishop work, he doesn't take her with him. And she probably has another job in the church.

But they are all one in the ward with each other, if we have learned to be that way with each other, hearts knit together.

To the gentleman who was asking about whether God learns . . . D&C 76 and D&C 132 both mention that the destiny and full potential of all human beings is to have overcome all things, and all things subject unto them. So it isn't just our Father in heaven who will be figuring everything out . . . eventually.

[mfbukowski]

I'd like to see Rob explain the passages from John 17, where we are to become one with the Father and Son in the same way they are one with each other. That's what poses the real problem for EVs; LDS doctrine concerning the Godhead (as noted above) makes much more sense.

Zackly.

[Storm Rider]

Serious question here: is it a mormon belief that the members of "the godhead" are still progressing, or have they reached a point of perfection from which there can no longer be any progression? If progression is eternal, than it would be easy to see how humans who become gods cannot be the same as the figures in "the godhead", since those figures have been progressing in their exaltation long before the first humans even existed....essentially, they have a infinitely longer headstart on those who are trying to follow in their path.

God is God. It is not LDS doctrine that God "progressed" to be God. He has always been God just as Jesus has always been a member of the Godhead. You are confusing God's creation with himself. God created us and gives us the opportunity to progress eternally.

[mfbukowski]

I don't know what you guys are talking about- of course God progresses- through us.

No official Church teaching attempts to specify all the ways in which God progresses in his exalted spheres; "there is no end to [His] works, neither to [His] words" (Moses 1:38). God's glory and power are enhanced as his children progress in glory and power (see Moses 1:39; Young, JD 10:5). Ideas have been advanced to explain how God might progress in knowledge and still be perfect and know all things (see Foreknowledge of God; Omnipotent God; Omnipresence of God; Omniscience of God).

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

[mfbukowski]

"One" is one.

Don't let this guy confuse you by dividing one into a hundred different segments. It says we will be ONE and that is what it means. One this way and one that way? That is not ONE.

Read John 17- it says ONE. That's it.

He can't even explain how his Trinity is "One" and now he is trying to confuse you into explaining and slicing and dicing what he cannot explain himself.

Just ignore it.

[mfbukowski]

Even the Son is not one with the Father in every way (even in the trinitarian understanding--The Father is not the Son, and vice versa).

But reading between the lines, it seems that your claim implicitly rests on the premiss that being in the Godhead makes them one in a way that they would not be otherwise. This rest on a small confusion: the term Godhead (as we apply it) only refers to their current respective positions in the hierarchy of priesthood, and not directly to an aspect of oneness. We can all enter the hierarchy. To extend the metaphor from before, we can all be members of the stake, and have callings, and be one with one another. The fact that I'm a secretary and not part of the Stake Presidency in no ways means I'm less one with the stake. But, it also doesn't mean I'm the President. I have my own role. Just as the Son is not the Father.

You got it bruthha!

[zerinus]

jwhitlock,

I addressed John 17 in my response to Bill Hamblin, mentioned in the thread he started about Witherington's blog.

That is a dodge. John 17 gives the complete answer to your question. If you think that it doesn't, it is up to you to present your arguments here in a cogent fashion so it can be discussed, not sending people on a wild goose chase reading lengthy articles about something else which they may not have an interest in reading.

Edited August 30, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

Serious question here: is it a mormon belief that the members of "the godhead" are still progressing, or have they reached a point of perfection from which there can no longer be any progression?

It is not Mormon doctrine that God is still progressing.

[zerinus]

Sure, I understand that god must be busy, and is therefore not stagnant. I just didn't know whether mormons consider god to be continually progressing or if he had reached a state in which there can be no progression, for everything is known, every power mastered, every truth revealed and nothing left to learn. Personally, that sounds like a rather dreary existence, to know that one has reached a state from which there is nothing more to learn, master, study, etc.

Luckily you are not God. I think that God is very happy to be God.

[zerinus]

Then you agree with me that exalted humans cannot become one with the Father and the Son in every way, but only in some or many ways. If we agree on this much, then the rest of the discussion is about distinguishing in what ways humans can and in what ways they cannot become one with the Father and the Son.

This is an important conclusion, because it means that we can agree that John 17:20-23 does not mean that believers may become one with the Father and the Son in every way that the Father and the Son are one with each other. The text therefore cannot be treated as an obvious proof text for deification; we will need to look at the context to determine in what way Jesus meant for his disciples to be "one."

The text of John 17 says "as we are [one]," which speaks for itself.

Edited August 30, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

Obviously, you have not read what I have written about John 17. I certainly don't think the apostles were to become one in substance. The point I am making here is that the Father and the Son are "one" in some ways that human beings never will or could be. We can be one with each other and with the Father and the Son in some ways as they are, but not in all ways. John 17 is talking about being one in ways that human beings can be one, not about being one in every way that God is.

The text says "as we are [one]," which speaks for itself. Their one-ness is a separate issue from their forming a Godhead. We can be one with them in exactly the same way that they are one with each other, without at the same time forming a Godhead with them. In other words, their one-ness is an essential prerequisite to their forming a Godhead; but their forming a Godhead is not a prerequisite to their one-ness. They need to be one in order to form a Godhead; but they don't need to form a Godhead in order to be one.

Edited August 30, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

Then you agree with me that exalted humans cannot become one with the Father and the Son in every way, but only in some or many ways.

Exalted humans can be one with the Father and the Son in every way; see my previous post.

[Bart Burk]

"One" is one.

Don't let this guy confuse you by dividing one into a hundred different segments. It says we will be ONE and that is what it means. One this way and one that way? That is not ONE.

Read John 17- it says ONE. That's it.

He can't even explain how his Trinity is "One" and now he is trying to confuse you into explaining and slicing and dicing what he cannot explain himself.

Just ignore it.

I agree with you completely!

[why me]

I think that the idea of a heavenly mother is a wonderful one. And it does make sense. Why would heavenly father be alone? Why would god be alone? I think that it is wonderful that the lds believe in heavenly parents. It should give comfort to all and I think that this aspect of eternity needs to be spoken about more often. When we die we go to meet our heavenly parents. Now that does sound nice.