If God became man, why is it heretical for man to become God?

[Spammer]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I think that apologists quote early church fathers to show that our teachings of deification are not really that peculiar.  We certainly have our own unique twist but the similarities in teachings are undeniable. 

I think that’s reasonable. Some apologists I’ve read have quoted the church fathers to ground their claims about lost truths restored by Joseph Smith, but they do not acknowledge the Catholicism of the writer. Your take is much better; it does not abuse the source. 

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is, of course, one of the huge differences between traditional Christianity and LDS Christianity: the nature of God. If God and humans have the same nature, then it absolutely makes sense that humans can become gods -- it's in our nature. However, if humans and God have different natures, then it just won't work. It would be like saying a really good dog can grow up to be a human someday. Ain't gonna happen.

So it goes back, like a lot of these disagreements do, to the nature of God and humans, which has always been a huge sticking point between traditional and LDS Christianity.

I think it becomes a question largely of semantics when discussing Theosis and Exaltation. In the end, both become unified with God. However else you want to describe it is personal preference. The early Church Fathers were clear that we become God - their words, not mine. I am comfortable with them and it seems that most Christians are not very uncomfortable with those words unless they are greatly explained to not mean we become God. For example, this statement, "the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself." - St. Irenaeus in Against Heresies, bk. 5  There is simply no way to say it any other way - we become like unto Jesus Christ, the 2nd member of the Trinity or Godhead.  There are a large number of similar quotes that could be used and they all say the same thing - we become like God. 

[Maidservant]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Because that's what Satan wanted people to believe, that they can become Gods. 

 

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Satan always wanted to become God

 

A point of view I've come to is that Lucifer always was an heir.  It seems strange to be fighting for something you already have.  So I don't think he was fighting to become a God, because he was already a Son.  I think the problem was he couldn't see it, didn't believe it.  He FORGOT.

[Spammer]

31 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I think it becomes a question largely of semantics when discussing Theosis and Exaltation. In the end, both become unified with God. However else you want to describe it is personal preference. The early Church Fathers were clear that we become God - their words, not mine. I am comfortable with them and it seems that most Christians are not very uncomfortable with those words unless they are greatly explained to not mean we become God. For example, this statement, "the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself." - St. Irenaeus in Against Heresies, bk. 5  There is simply no way to say it any other way - we become like unto Jesus Christ, the 2nd member of the Trinity or Godhead.  There are a large number of similar quotes that could be used and they all say the same thing - we become like God. 

It seems that among many church members, if not yet officially, the view of theosis I was raised with in Utah is becoming passé.  My patriarchal blessing states that the Lord himself will tutor me in the creation of worlds. This understanding of theosis, defined in my time as becoming literally just like the Father and doing what He does, e.g., govern a section of the universe; create planets; and, with your celestial spouse (or spouses, if you’ve been sealed to more than one woman), populate them with spirit children, seems to have been (or is being) deemphasized.  We will be like the Son, if not exactly like the Father.

If true, then LDS teaching is now somewhat closer to the teaching of the church fathers than it once was, though there’s still an ontological gap - no church father taught the Father is embodied.

Edited November 6, 2018 by Spammer

[Anakin7]

2 Cor 8:9

The Atonement It is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS, Saint, Christian, Sentinel, Son of Thunder, Kryptonian, Warrior

 

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, Spammer said:

It seems that among many church members, if not yet officially, the view of theosis I was raised with in Utah is becoming passé.  My patriarchal blessing states that the Lord himself will tutor me in the creation of worlds. This understanding of theosis, defined in my time as becoming literally just like the Father and doing what He does, e.g., govern a section of the universe; create planets; and, with your celestial spouse (or spouses, if you’ve been sealed to more than one woman), populate them with spirit children, seems to have been (or is being) deemphasized.  We will be like the Son, if not exactly like the Father.

Interesting observations.

I  wonder if there really has been a subtle shift from the father to the son in our thinking.  

It used to be that we worshipped Christ as an example of his Father.  It seems now that we have superimposed the disneyfied Christ over God as well.

Additionally I can't remember the last time I saw anyone differentiate between the level of the son vs the level of the father, despite scriptures.

[Garden Girl]

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 If you read about it in the link, they mention men working on their own salvation. And this is what the non-LDS Christians are saying  LDS do and that it is heretical.

Tacenda...

In the Apostle Paul's epistle to the Philippians, Paul admonishes them... (Phil 2:12-13) "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.   For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

 

I've mentioned this to you before, Tacenda, but I notice in some of your posts it is evident you misunderstand and need to study more...(we all need to in fact).

GG

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2018 by Garden Girl

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

Tacenda...

In the Apostle Paul's epistle to the Philippians, Paul admonishes them... (Phil 2:12-13) "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.   For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

 

I've mentioned this to you before, Tacenda, but I notice in some of your posts it is evident you misunderstand and need to study more...(we all need to in fact).

 

GG,

I'm a broken record, sorry. When I mentioned working on their salvation I thought of the freemasons with the degrees, and it even mentions the celestial tier in one of the links about Freemasonry I linked on my post. And I believe this is where JS got an idea for how to do temple work. So this has me worried that it isn't of God. But you know me, I'm on a perpetual merry go round.

 

 

Edited November 6, 2018 by Tacenda

[pogi]

12 hours ago, Spammer said:

It seems that among many church members, if not yet officially, the view of theosis I was raised with in Utah is becoming passé.  My patriarchal blessing states that the Lord himself will tutor me in the creation of worlds. This understanding of theosis, defined in my time as becoming literally just like the Father and doing what He does, e.g., govern a section of the universe; create planets; and, with your celestial spouse (or spouses, if you’ve been sealed to more than one woman), populate them with spirit children, seems to have been (or is being) deemphasized.  We will be like the Son, if not exactly like the Father.

If true, then LDS teaching is now somewhat closer to the teaching of the church fathers than it once was, though there’s still an ontological gap - no church father taught the Father is embodied.

I like your patriarchal blessing!  That is still how I (and I would assume most) view theiosis in the restored gospel.  Anything less is not really what a God is and does.

Just curious about your interpretation of Ireneaous and others, what does becoming a god look like in Catholicism?  Is it just a title, or is there more to it?  What does it mean to “become what he is”?

Will we be God in every way except being disembodied?  What does that mean exactly to you?

Edited November 6, 2018 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Interesting observations.

I  wonder if there really has been a subtle shift from the father to the son in our thinking.  

It used to be that we worshipped Christ as an example of his Father.  It seems now that we have superimposed the disneyfied Christ over God as well.

Additionally I can't remember the last time I saw anyone differentiate between the level of the son vs the level of the father, despite scriptures.

This is an interesting point that I have done some thinking about.

For me it seems that I am speaking to one person and intelligence who responds to me and knows me well, when I pray at cetera. And I feel that it is that person who responds to me.

My tendency to project who that person is, is Christ.

Consciously I know that it could very well be the entire Godhead, but it doesn't feel that way.

Jews and Muslims do not regard Christians as true monotheists in many cases. Yet it in my heart I am a monotheist responding to Whomever it is out there I'm talking to.

Perhaps this kind of thing encourages the attitude of putting Christ over the Father. Furthermore he was a real historical being who walked this Earth. That makes him a lot easier to relate to as the Ideal and Perfect Man of Holiness.

It is easier from me to see Him as a role model. After all even as children we are taught "What would Jesus do?"  It is Christ whom we are taught to imitate.

[RevTestament]

15 hours ago, Maidservant said:

 

A point of view I've come to is that Lucifer always was an heir.  It seems strange to be fighting for something you already have.  So I don't think he was fighting to become a God, because he was already a Son.  I think the problem was he couldn't see it, didn't believe it.  He FORGOT.

Interesting...he forgot. No, I don't believe he forgot at all, and is still angry about falling, and not getting things his way. Thus, he has sworn in his wrath to lead us away. The operative here is the past. He WAS a son at one time, but he didn't want to do things God's way, and so eventually he rejected the path God had laid for us all. Exactly when this happened, I do not know, but it is apparent that it happened long before this world, because he has done the same on other worlds.

I hear Satan's story in these words:

Doctrine and Covenants 121:39

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the ^anature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little ^bauthority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise ^cunrighteous dominion.

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, Maidservant said:

 

A point of view I've come to is that Lucifer always was an heir.  It seems strange to be fighting for something you already have.  So I don't think he was fighting to become a God, because he was already a Son.  I think the problem was he couldn't see it, didn't believe it.  He FORGOT.

I suspect it is more that Lucifer wanted the prestige of being the Savior without all the atonement nastiness and not having to deal with everyone’s agency screwing up his perfect approach.

[RevTestament]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well that is  the  immanence problem- and the old creator/created thingy which makes about as much sense- none.

If Christ was begotten "before" all worlds then  the concept is still temporal.  "Before" is a time reference.  And the Catechism speaks of why God created us- "to show forth his goodness".

If He is the creator then he created us- there must have been a time before he created us and after he created us just logically.   You cant have one event after another and not be in "time"

The usual answer is that "it's a mystery" because no one can explain the contradictions, and they all seem to be semantic problems to me.

If we start with the presumption that we cannot explain God- as I think we do-  we do not have to even TRY to figure out things like how to resurrect someone because that has not been revealed.

So on one hand it is called a mystery and on the other some thinkers come up then with non-explanations to explain what cannot be explained.

That's why I am drawn to mysticism- yeah  we cannot explain it in language.

Stop.  End  of story.   It's revelation to the feelings, visions and direct experience-  fergitabout trying to put it into words.   If no one knows, say so!

I could even believe in the "real presence" in the sacrament that way- but no- they have to come up with some crazy explanation that makes no sense.!   All one has to say is "Jesus is here" and that's all that can be said about it.  No need for "substance" and "appearance" distinctions.

Again Rorty-  says there isn't much you can say about a lot of things- and Wittgenstein- "On what cannot be explained clearly we must remain silent"

Sounds pretty wise to me!   God testifies to my heart that it is true- who needs nonsensical explanations??    Prideful .... nonsense

I'm not sure I quite understand you. Are you saying that nonsensical explanations are prideful? How about sensible explanations? If Christ really did do everything He had seen the Father do, and was following in His footsteps, is it not indeed probable that on a prior world created by the Father, Yeshua was begotten by the oath, Thou art my Son this day I have begotten thee? And being made the Son, He became the author of our salvation, and with the Father created this world for us? And was indeed sent here as the only begotten Son of the Father? To do the work of the Father, and become His inheritor, even to inherit His name/title? Teaching His brothers to follow Him? I do admit that if so, that was a hidden mystery, but the scriptures do seem to make sense in that paradigm. Are you saying that it is prideful to believe that? Should I be made to apologize for that testimony or excommunicated? 

Now, I agree that making Him begotten before all ages and worlds is not manifested in the scriptures - to me it becomes a non-explanation, and insisting that everyone else believe that way or not be called Christian, does seem a bit prideful - yet that is essentially exactly what happened at the time of the Nicene council. The backing of the Roman government was used to criminalize any other belief, or at least throw any such believer out of the tax-favored state church. So, if my hypothetical was indeed, the truth, how would Satan approach this issue? Would he be doing something like the empire was doing? Mandating truth not found in the scriptures as the answer to the true mystery of God, and stamping out all the opposition found in those heretical eastern churches?  Just where were those seven churches of Revelation 2-3? 

[Vance]

20 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I don't want to get much into this (debating scriptures, etc) so I'll say this.

Ok.

20 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Jesus was both 100% God and 100% human (His dual natures).

That isn't in the scriptures anyway.

I find it very interesting that an impassible gulf between man (creature) and God (creator) was philosophized, and then magically Jesus bridges this impassible gulf by being assigned the illogical "100% God and 100% human".

Why create an unsolvable problem to start with?

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Vance said:

Ok.

That isn't in the scriptures anyway.

I find it very interesting that an impassible gulf between man (creature) and God (creator) was philosophized, and then magically Jesus bridges this impassible gulf by being assigned the illogical "100% God and 100% human".

Why create an unsolvable problem to start with?

But the LDS conception of God is that the Father is fully God and fully Man.........

[carbon dioxide]

People say that God can do anything.  If that is actually true and they believe that there is no reason God can't make us as he is.   We don't believe that we can become like God by ourselves.  God raises us to his level and only God can do this.   If we are the children of God and children (offspring) of God and all offspring are able to become like their parents, then as children of God, we can become like God.  Just as a cub is able to become a full grown bear. 

Edited November 6, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

People say that God can do anything.  If that is actually true and they believe that there is no reason God can't make us as he is.   We don't believe that we can become like God by ourselves.  God raises us to his level and only God can do this. 

But if God can do anything why do we need this whole tiresome mortality rigmarole to get there? This is why I avoid discussions of things God cannot do........I do not think we know enough to speculate intelligently on the topic.

[RevTestament]

15 hours ago, Spammer said:

It seems that among many church members, if not yet officially, the view of theosis I was raised with in Utah is becoming passé.  My patriarchal blessing states that the Lord himself will tutor me in the creation of worlds. This understanding of theosis, defined in my time as becoming literally just like the Father and doing what He does, e.g., govern a section of the universe; create planets; and, with your celestial spouse (or spouses, if you’ve been sealed to more than one woman), populate them with spirit children, seems to have been (or is being) deemphasized.  We will be like the Son, if not exactly like the Father.

If true, then LDS teaching is now somewhat closer to the teaching of the church fathers than it once was, though there’s still an ontological gap - no church father taught the Father is embodied.

That is honestly put Spammer. I have been a member of this Church since 1976. However, I went inactive so I may not be able to give a completely thorough appraisal of everything which has transpired since then. Nevertheless, when I returned around 1998, it seems to me the Church was doing a little "back pedaling" for lack of a better word. Hinckley didn't deny theosis, but it seemed to me it was definitely deemphasized along with other past teachings. It seemed to me there was a concerted effort to "mainstream the Church" as I call it. 

Your comment about the church "fathers" is somewhat presumptive to me. I'm sure you do not include Arius in your list of church "fathers." And there were many churches in the east who reinstated him. Don't get all bent out of shape. I am not saying Arius had a grip on the mysteries, but I do believe He wished to follow Christ, and wished to follow scripture. Why can't he be a "church father?" I think what bothered the western church is that he believed he could become like Christ in a literal sense. There was definitely a tendency at that time for adoptionist phrases in the scriptures to get edited out. We now have enough early manuscripts to see a few such places where it seems Christ was put on an absolutely equal footing with the Father, rather than as His servant, and gets referred to as Theos/God instead of as Christos, His annointed. Again, do not get bent out of shape. I am not saying that He was not Elohim, nor that He was not YHWH. I believe He was, but like us He had a Father - El Elyon, the Most High Power, and He was the son of the Most High per Luke. I just believe He literally showed the way to the holiest of all. This way was evident in the keys of scripture, the oracles, rather than something mandated by the understanding of men. Must I believe these early disciples really understood God better than me? Herein is the beauty of the restored gospel. I can take what was true and build upon it, rather than having to accept all of the early interpretations, and trying to understand them as unexplicable mysteries. I don't believe that is what God intended. I believe per Revelation, He intends the mystery of God to be finished.

[The Nehor]

16 hours ago, Spammer said:

It seems that among many church members, if not yet officially, the view of theosis I was raised with in Utah is becoming passé.  My patriarchal blessing states that the Lord himself will tutor me in the creation of worlds. This understanding of theosis, defined in my time as becoming literally just like the Father and doing what He does, e.g., govern a section of the universe; create planets; and, with your celestial spouse (or spouses, if you’ve been sealed to more than one woman), populate them with spirit children, seems to have been (or is being) deemphasized.  We will be like the Son, if not exactly like the Father.

If true, then LDS teaching is now somewhat closer to the teaching of the church fathers than it once was, though there’s still an ontological gap - no church father taught the Father is embodied.

I think the goal was to pull it off being a casual discussion piece. President Hinckley stated that we do not know much about it and he was right. I heard of a Sunday School class in which the teacher started out each lesson by reminding everyone they are “gods in embryo” and structuring the lesson to feed back into how the lesson topic relates to that. I feel uncomfortable when this Doctrine is bandied about casually. It is primarily a temple teaching.

I like the way it is now. Most faithful members I know accept it but it is not casually discussed and is largely kept to sacred situations.

[RevTestament]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think the goal was to pull it off being a casual discussion piece. President Hinckley stated that we do not know much about it and he was right. I heard of a Sunday School class in which the teacher started out each lesson by reminding everyone they are “gods in embryo” and structuring the lesson to feed back into how the lesson topic relates to that. I feel uncomfortable when this Doctrine is bandied about casually. It is primarily a temple teaching.

I like the way it is now. Most faithful members I know accept it but it is not casually discussed and is largely kept to sacred situations.

The thing is, I believe God intends for all His mysteries to be made known. They will get taught to all. I do see wisdom in not talking about things not fully understood - I think that is how we got here in the first place. Men mandated what they didn't understand into creeds rather than allowing it to progress precept upon precept. I see that as the problem with bantering these types of things about. Nevertheless, even if they are sacred, so is everything in the gospel. And He wants all to be taught His gospel. And he does intend for His mysteries to eventually be revealed. The only way for them to understand is either to learn them themselves, or get taught them. I believe the purpose of this Church is to teach them.  The only issue I see is that it is presumed that only the GAs can learn or know these mysteries. If someone else does, the present structure does not allow them to get taught. Indeed, it is my experience that they will get auto-rejected, the cold shoulder, etc. - because only the GAs are allowed to teach "the mysteries" when they basically admitted as you note "We don't know much about it." No one else is "allowed" to either. Forbid if anyone should understand a precept before them... sounds like the perfect way for truth to get taught. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

But the LDS conception of God is that the Father is fully God and fully Man.........

I am having trouble figuring out why one has to say that.  I am fully  man and fully a member of the church and fully a member of a political party and fully an uncle- to several- does that mean I have 5  natures?

I mean of course I know I am a 500% kind of guy but I won't brag about it......

What would it take to NOT be "fully" any of these things?

Can one be 56.375% a man and the remainder something else?  The words just baffle me trying to figure out what they could possibly mean.

Like Popeye, I am what I am and I presume so is God

Golly  he even called himself "I AM"- do  you think that  might have been for a reason?

We have the expression "it is what it is" which also does not really say much- or does it?  The usual meaning of that is "These are things about which we can do nothing- deal with it!"

So God is what he is- a glorified and perfect man.  He is the fullness of all attributes by definition if you want to think that way.  But do you have to list them?

There's a whole lot of things he is "fully" if you want to start looking at it that way....

[The Nehor]

52 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

The thing is, I believe God intends for all His mysteries to be made known. They will get taught to all. I do see wisdom in not talking about things not fully understood - I think that is how we got here in the first place. Men mandated what they didn't understand into creeds rather than allowing it to progress precept upon precept. I see that as the problem with bantering these types of things about. Nevertheless, even if they are sacred, so is everything in the gospel. And He wants all to be taught His gospel. And he does intend for His mysteries to eventually be revealed. The only way for them to understand is either to learn them themselves, or get taught them. I believe the purpose of this Church is to teach them.  The only issue I see is that it is presumed that only the GAs can learn or know these mysteries. If someone else does, the present structure does not allow them to get taught. Indeed, it is my experience that they will get auto-rejected, the cold shoulder, etc. - because only the GAs are allowed to teach "the mysteries" when they basically admitted as you note "We don't know much about it." No one else is "allowed" to either. Forbid if anyone should understand a precept before them... sounds like the perfect way for truth to get taught. 

I disagree. The gospel is to be taught to all (usually, there are exceptions like when Mormon was told not to preach). The mysteries are only for the faithful. And the scriptures cover it:

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.

You are only allowed to teach the portion that has been granted generally though many know and receive more but that is for their own growth and edification and is generally not to be shared. If we want God to make more of it generally available we have to increase in obedience generally. If a saint wants to know the mysteries they are required to be obedient and be trustworthy enough for God to know they will not blabber them around.

[The Nehor]

57 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I am having trouble figuring out why one has to say that.  I am fully  man and fully a member of the church and fully a member of a political party and fully an uncle- to several- does that mean I have 5  natures?

I mean of course I know I am a 500% kind of guy but I won't brag about it......

What would it take to NOT be "fully" any of these things?

Can one be 56.375% a man and the remainder something else?  The words just baffle me trying to figure out what they could possibly mean.

Like Popeye, I am what I am and I presume so is God

Golly  he even called himself "I AM"- do  you think that  might have been for a reason?

We have the expression "it is what it is" which also does not really say much- or does it?  The usual meaning of that is "These are things about which we can do nothing- deal with it!"

So God is what he is- a glorified and perfect man.  He is the fullness of all attributes by definition if you want to think that way.  But do you have to list them?

There's a whole lot of things he is "fully" if you want to start looking at it that way....

If the scriptures are any indication we do list them quite a bit. I believe the most bloated entry in the LDS scripture Topical Guide are all the entries on Jesus Christ and all his names and those scriptures are filled with attributes.

Edited November 6, 2018 by The Nehor

[RevTestament]

45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I am having trouble figuring out why one has to say that.  I am fully  man and fully a member of the church and fully a member of a political party and fully an uncle- to several- does that mean I have 5  natures?

Yes. And it is def heretical to believe you have two natures like Christ... He is the only one...

Quote

I mean of course I know I am a 500% kind of guy but I won't brag about it......

No worries - so long as you don't have the two nature's of Christ. And if you don't believe that, you get the :mobster_emoji_with_gun: 

(darn, on this forum I used to visit they had that emoji... a terribly boring and uninteresting side note - I once attempted to understand this debate in the state church by reading some of the ancient debaters... omh...after pages and pages and pages and pages of stuff about why Christ has 2 natures I threw up my hands in disgust - just exaggerating - I just went  )

[RevTestament]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I disagree. The gospel is to be taught to all (usually, there are exceptions like when Mormon was told not to preach). The mysteries are only for the faithful. And the scriptures cover it:

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.

You are only allowed to teach the portion that has been granted generally though many know and receive more but that is for their own growth and edification and is generally not to be shared. If we want God to make more of it generally available we have to increase in obedience generally. If a saint wants to know the mysteries they are required to be obedient and be trustworthy enough for God to know they will not blabber them around.

Well, yes and no. There are things which are not to be taught to others in a direct sense, but the idea in the general sense will get taught to all. What I mean is eventually. In a sense the mysteries are already available to all. They just don't see them because they believe interpretations of others. I'll put it this way. Everything I believe about the mysteries I can see from the scriptures. I don't think I came up with some unknown scripture to understand things the way I do. I just put the pieces together differently than others have... say Augustine or Tertullian. The way I see it gives me understanding and light. Should I share that? I want to, but don't feel allowed to.  You seem to feel we shouldn't discuss these things. I enjoy discussing them. Yet, there is a part of me that knows certain things are not to be shared. Christ laid out the path... He doesn't drag us along it, but tells us that the path is narrow, and few there be that find it. He told us the path is there. It is not a secret, but He doesn't say much about finding that path. I think the reason why is because He wants us to look for the path. I choose to look beyond the understanding of the early patristic disciples. I choose to look beyond the understanding of BY. Should that be discouraged or once the prophet speaks, the thinking is really done? I also choose to discuss that search because Christ wants everyone to know that path is there. That is the real mystery of the gospel. It is available to all but few there be who get chosen to teach it.