Heavenly Mother, Exaltation, And The Oneness Of The Godhead

[KevinG]

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.

Like any loving parent God is continually glorified as He brings His children to perfection.

[shalamabobbi]

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.

Yes the idea that God the Father is a bachelor is kinda creepy isn't it?

Edited August 30, 2012 by shalamabobbi

[shalamabobbi]

To use this text to justify irrationality is...well, irrational.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/religion-spirituality/1515105-how-many-evangelicals-still-believe-young.html

Oh the irony..

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

shalamabobbi,

Perhaps it's because I'm tired, but I just don't get it. If members of the stake cannot become members of the stake presidency, then they cannot become one with the stake presidency in every sense in which the stake presidency members are one with each other.

I am unaware of any scripture that says that we will be one with God in every single way that Jesus is one with the Father.

I think the operative word is "like". We will become one with the Father like Jesus is one with the Father.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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."

Correct. I have never made the argument that they will be one in every way. But we do have to ask the question, "In what ways are we to be one with the Father"?

[KevinG]

But we do have to ask the question, "In what ways are we to be one with the Father"?

For 500 points: "What is knowledge Alex?"

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

Yes, I quite agree with you here. Perhaps I will just sit back and watch and learn. I seem to be making not very good arguments as others so.....

[Walden]

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.

How has god always been god? Did he just appear/come into existence from nothing? If there was nothing before there was god, how did god come into existence?

[Bart Burk]

How has god always been god? Did he just appear/come into existence from nothing? If there was nothing before there was god, how did god come into existence?

That's no different than an LDS person asking, "Where did the first God come from?" Ultimately, God is God and it is fruitless for us to even ask the question where He came from. It is better just to accept that He is.

[Vance]

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.

Then you know what the solution to your problem is.

[Walden]

That's no different than an LDS person asking, "Where did the first God come from?" Ultimately, God is God and it is fruitless for us to even ask the question where He came from. It is better just to accept that He is.

Yes, I admit, I have a difficult time just accepting things without asking questions. Essentially, I guess, that is exactly what I am asking, "Where did the first God come from?".....if the LDS god has always been god, as stated by a poster previously in this thread, then he must have just appeared from nothing?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

How has god always been god? Did he just appear/come into existence from nothing? If there was nothing before there was god, how did god come into existence?

I am not sure. I might be force to adopt Christopher Hitchen's view. That ultimately the first cause was a big bang and it was evolution.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes, I admit, I have a difficult time just accepting things without asking questions. Essentially, I guess, that is exactly what I am asking, "Where did the first God come from?".....if the LDS god has always been god, as stated by a poster previously in this thread, then he must have just appeared from nothing?

You know, the thing I think about is that God has always been God when we refer to our relationship to him. In the grand scheme of things its like my kids. Have I always been a father myself? Nope. Will I always be a father after my first kid? Yup. I hope that helps. Edited August 30, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Bart Burk]

Yes, I admit, I have a difficult time just accepting things without asking questions. Essentially, I guess, that is exactly what I am asking, "Where did the first God come from?".....if the LDS god has always been god, as stated by a poster previously in this thread, then he must have just appeared from nothing?

The traditional Christian answer is that God existed prior to creation itself outside of any realm of time so talking about before and after God makes no sense.

[Vance]

if the LDS god has always been god, as stated by a poster previously in this thread, then he must have just appeared from nothing?

Sorry, but your "then" statement does NOT follow your "if" statement.

[Rob Bowman]

Zeta-Flux,

You wrote:

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).

Correct. The Father and the Son are not one person. But my point is that the disciples in John 17 are not expected to be one in all of the ways that the Father and the Son are one with each other, beyond the obvious that the disciples are not themselves the Father and the Son. Specifically, as I have explained, the disciples are not one Godhead with each other and they are not one Godhead with the Father and the Son, for the obvious reason that the disciples are not members of any Godhead at all.

You wrote:

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.

No need to read between the lines; this is precisely what I have been saying.

You wrote:

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.

I see you're not the only one here to offer this explanation. Could you cite an authoritative LDS source that presents this explanation? I can cite statements to the contrary, found on your religion's official website lds.org. Here's one from an article that the LDS Church has published several times in its magazines over the past quarter-century:

"It is that perfect unity between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost that binds these three into the oneness of the divine Godhead."--Gordon B. Hinckley, "The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," Ensign, Nov. 1986; Ensign, March 1998; "In These Three I Believe," Liahona, July 2006.

Here is another example:

"Because other churches do not accept modern revelation about the oneness of the Godhead, these churches are confused and believe that Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are one spirit."--Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3, Lesson 1

[mfbukowski]

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.

It's interesting to me that Catholics felt a need to have a "mother goddess" figure as well which of course they found in Mary.

Cathoicism now regards Mary as a "co-redemptrix" with Christ. It is my belief that this is an early corruption of the belief in heavenly Mother which did not fit with the Trinity- and so heavenly Mother got dropped a level or two and Mary took on that doctrinal role. http://en.wikipedia....i/Co-Redemptrix

It's ironic that Rob brings that up- making a convincing case that the sectarian Trinity cannot accommodate Heavenly Mother as a part of the Trinity as he understands it (thinking our Godhead is similar) with all this confusion about slicing and dicing what the word "ONE" means

Of course Heavenly Mother does not fit into the Trinity- but she DOES fit perfectly into the idea that we are all can be ONE with our Father.

This whole thing is about families.

Are you in your great-grandfather's family?

In one sense of course you are! He is your great-grandfather! But in another sense you are not part of his nuclear family which he had before he was married. So in one sense you are, in another you are not.

This whole thing is not about a confusion about the meaning of "one"- it is a misunderstanding of the Mormon concept of eternal families.

All of mankind is one family in a sense, and yet of course we speak of our individual families as well. There is no ambiguity here when you see it as it is- we are all ONE family AND we are eligible to become ONE with our Father just as he is ONE with his Son. We are sons an daughters of our great grandfathers also.

There is nothing to be confused about here. The only thing which is confusing is the Trinity and of course if we are comparing ourselves to that- then it is no wonder that it would appear to be confusing. One in being or essence or whatever? Let them figure that out- it is a meaningless trap full of confusion.

So we know what Rob will probably put on his website.

"Mormons believe that they can all be part of the Godhead". Let's wait and see.

Edited August 30, 2012 by mfbukowski

[KevinG]

I think a review of the concept of set, subset and a good Venn diagram would be helpful here.

[Bart Burk]

It's interesting to me that Catholics felt a need to have a "mother goddess" figure as well which of course they found in Mary.

Cathoicism now regards Mary as a "co-redemptrix" with Christ. It is my belief that this is an early corruption of the belief in heavenly Mother which did not fit with the Trinity- and so heavenly Mother got dropped a level or two and Mary took on that doctrinal role. http://en.wikipedia....i/Co-Redemptrix

It's ironic that Rob brings that up- making a convincing case that the sectarian Trinity cannot accommodate Heavenly Mother as a part of the Trinity as he understands it (thinking our Godhead is similar) with all this confusion about slicing and dicing what the word "ONE" means

Of course Heavenly Mother does not fit into the Trinity- but she DOES fit perfectly into the idea that we are all can be ONE with our Father.

This whole thing is about families.

Are you in your great-grandfather's family?

In one sense of course you are! He is your great-grandfather! But in another sense you are not part of his nuclear family which he had before he was married. So in one sense you are, in another you are not.

This whole thing is not about a confusion about the meaning of "one"- it is a misunderstanding of the Mormon concept of eternal families.

All of mankind is one family in a sense, and yet of course we speak of our individual families as well. There is no ambiguity here when you see it as it is- we are all ONE family AND we are eligible to become ONE with our Father just as he is ONE with his Son. We are sons an daughters of our great grandfathers also.

There is nothing to be confused about here. The only thing which is confusing is the Trinity and of course if we are comparing ourselves to that- then it is no wonder that it would appear to be confusing. One in being or essence or whatever? Let them figure that out- it is a meaningless trap full of confusion.

So we know what Rob will probably put on his website.

"Mormons believe that they can all be part of the Godhead". Let's wait and see.

The idea that Mary is co-redemptrix has not yet been infallibly accepted -- it is entertained in some quarters, and people have asked the Pope to raise it to the status of an infallible doctrine, but it has not happened yet. In some ways we can all be called co-redemptrixes to the extent that we cooperate with Christ in the salvation of others. That is really all the doctrine means.

Of course this would not be considered plausible by Mormons, but if we were really going to get into some heavy speculation about Heavenly Mother it would seem a case could be made that just as Mary was Christ's mother in the flesh, she might have been Christ's mother in some way in the pre-existence. Christ didn't have a physical body when he was the means of creating the earth so there might be a case to be made that in Mary's pre-existence she could already have been the wife of Heavenly Father. The obvious argument against that is Christ being called the firstborn of God, but the term firstborn is likely more a title of his pre-eminence than of birth order. Speculation is fun, but not necessarily wise.

[BCSpace]

First, where does Heavenly Mother fit into this explanation of the Trinity?

First, I believe that to even use the term "trinity", be one prophet or nursery leader, in the LDS context is grievously disingenuous. There is almost no comparison between the heretical trinity doctrine and the Biblical LDS Godhead. After the three Persons, the comparison ends completely.

Second, I believe Genesis 5:1-3 is telling us that God is a married couple by equating the image of God with the married Adam and Eve.

I understand that she is not a member of the Godhead according to LDS doctrine. But wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that she, as an exalted being and the wife of Heavenly Father, would be "one will" with Heavenly Father? If so, would not her "oneness" with the Father be the same as the oneness that defines the unity of the Godhead? And if so, why isn't she by definition then a member of the Godhead?

Sure. John 17:11,21-2 communicates the same for all (hopefully) us.

For that matter, I am having trouble putting the following claims together:

1. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost comprise the Godhead.

Goes without saying.

2. The Godhead is one in the sense that its members are of one will with each other.

The Bible says they are "one" and "in" each other. That means respectively (and Lexically), they are "of the same mind" and "stand next to each other in support of".

3. Exalted humans can never become members of the Godhead.

God will always be our God in the same way our earthly fathers and mothers will always be our fathers and mothers.. However, see John 17 as referenced above and also Revelation 3:21 et. al. referring to Biblical Theosis. We will become Gods and Creators in our own right havin the same power and authority God the Father has now.

4. Exalted humans can become one with the Father and the Son, in just the same way as the Father and the Son are one with each other.

Goes without saying.

Since the Father and the Son are members of the Godhead (from #1), claims #3 and #4 appear to conflict with each other. This apparent incoherence is confirmed by claim #2, since the point of that claim seems to be that humans can attain the same oneness of will with each other and with the Father and the Son that the members of the Godhead have with each other.

I think the notion of God always being our God combined with the fact of Biblical Theosis should clear that up though you'll have to be the judge for yourself. Notice also that God will delegate responsibility to us in, for example, 1 Cor. 6:2.

[Zeta-Flux]

Correct. The Father and the Son are not one person. But my point is that the disciples in John 17 are not expected to be one in all of the ways that the Father and the Son are one with each other, beyond the obvious that the disciples are not themselves the Father and the Son. Specifically, as I have explained, the disciples are not one Godhead with each other and they are not one Godhead with the Father and the Son, for the obvious reason that the disciples are not members of any Godhead at all.

And, as I tried to explain, being in the Godhead (the presidency of the priesthood) makes them no more one (in the relevant sense of unity) than they are with the others in the priesthood.

Similarly, just because Christ is not part of "The Father and Zeta-Flux" that doesn't in any way imply that I am more one with the Father than Christ is.

No need to read between the lines; this is precisely what I have been saying.

I'm glad I understood. :-)

I see you're not the only one here to offer this explanation. Could you cite an authoritative LDS source that presents this explanation? I can cite statements to the contrary, found on your religion's official website lds.org. Here's one from an article that the LDS Church has published several times in its magazines over the past quarter-century:

"It is that perfect unity between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost that binds these three into the oneness of the divine Godhead."--Gordon B. Hinckley, "The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," Ensign, Nov. 1986; Ensign, March 1998; "In These Three I Believe," Liahona, July 2006.

Here is another example:

"Because other churches do not accept modern revelation about the oneness of the Godhead, these churches are confused and believe that Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are one spirit."--Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3, Lesson 1

Each of these quotations says that unity/oneness is an essential property of the Godhead. They posses oneness. These quotes in no way says that the oneness they share is not shared with others. So certainly being in the Godhead implies that they are one. Sure. But it doesn't imply an exclusionary oneness.

That said, we LDS are not an overly philosophical bunch. Any quotation I would give about how we can be one with God, sit on his throne (i.e., share in the rulership of the universe), be Gods, etc..., would come from that position and not be a philosophical statement about the properties of oneness. It would be a practical statement about our future inheritance. I know you are aware of statements from our leaders saying we can be one with God, just as Christ is one with him. etc...

I hope that helps.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[why me]

Yes the idea that God the Father is a bachelor is kinda creepy isn't it?

I am not sure if it is creepy. But it is certainly lonely. I think that when people critically think about it, they would see that the idea of heavenly parents make sense. And the idea of being their spiritual child also makes sense.

[mfbukowski]

The idea that Mary is co-redemptrix has not yet been infallibly accepted -- it is entertained in some quarters, and people have asked the Pope to raise it to the status of an infallible doctrine, but it has not happened yet. In some ways we can all be called co-redemptrixes to the extent that we cooperate with Christ in the salvation of others. That is really all the doctrine means.

We use the term "saviors on Mt. Zion" for a similar concept regarding doing temple work. We are allowed to do their work vicariously as Christ's sacrifice was a vicarious sacrifice for us.

Of course this would not be considered plausible by Mormons, but if we were really going to get into some heavy speculation about Heavenly Mother it would seem a case could be made that just as Mary was Christ's mother in the flesh, she might have been Christ's mother in some way in the pre-existence. Christ didn't have a physical body when he was the means of creating the earth so there might be a case to be made that in Mary's pre-existence she could already have been the wife of Heavenly Father. The obvious argument against that is Christ being called the firstborn of God, but the term firstborn is likely more a title of his pre-eminence than of birth order. Speculation is fun, but not necessarily wise.

I don't know- it's an interesting way to connect some unconnected dots.

[zerinus]

Correct. The Father and the Son are not one person. But my point is that the disciples in John 17 are not expected to be one in all of the ways that the Father and the Son are one with each other, beyond the obvious that the disciples are not themselves the Father and the Son.

Yes they are, see my previous #46 and #47, which you are ignoring.

Specifically, as I have explained, the disciples are not one Godhead with each other and they are not one Godhead with the Father and the Son, for the obvious reason that the disciples are not members of any Godhead at all.

Sure, and neither do they need to be, in order that they may be one with them. See previous post mentioned above.

I see you're not the only one here to offer this explanation. Could you cite an authoritative LDS source that presents this explanation? I can cite statements to the contrary, found on your religion's official website lds.org. Here's one from an article that the LDS Church has published several times in its magazines over the past quarter-century:

"It is that perfect unity between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost that binds these three into the oneness of the divine Godhead."--Gordon B. Hinckley, "The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," Ensign, Nov. 1986; Ensign, March 1998; "In These Three I Believe," Liahona, July 2006.

Here is another example:

"Because other churches do not accept modern revelation about the oneness of the Godhead, these churches are confused and believe that Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are one spirit."--Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3, Lesson 1

But they don't say that the disciples cannot be one with the Father and the Son, just as the Father and the Son are one. John 17 doesn't say that they are one with them now, but that they may be, or will be.

[SeekerB]

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.

I think God, long ago, decided that the kind of being He is was considered "perfection". His nature has the best parts of all other possible states of being. We only know of a few: intelligences, spirits, human beings, translated beings, telestial, terrestrial and celestial beings, of which, I think, three kinds are mentioned, with exaltation being the highest. There may be, or more likely, may have been, other types of beings.

I don't know what the capabilities are of the other types, but apparently, spirits are capable of great accomplishments such as creating worlds. Scripture also says that after death, we will look upon the loss of our physical body as a bondage, so there is less than "perfection" in the spirit only nature. There may be similar limitations in the other types of existence, with exaltation being the best of everything, hence, perfect.

I don't think we can actually know what oneness really is until we are Celestial, and capable of experiencing it. It has to be more than just agreement in purpose, since God knows the thoughts of our hearts. Maybe when we are able to know the thoughts of His heart, we will be at one with Him.

I also don't think that every single thing is, or can be known, meaning there will still be new songs, new stories, new experiences, etc. during all of eternity.

But perhaps I ramble.

Edited August 30, 2012 by SeekerB