Happy 2012, friends! May this be a healthy, happy, and prosperous year for you. It certainly looks to be a busy one, as Mitt Romney is steaming ahead if not to a win in Iowa then almost certainly to the GOP nomination. And if he does, you can bet that questions about unfamiliar Mormon beliefs will claim a chunk of media attention.
A few weeks ago, this question arrived from an old friend now teaching at a liberal arts college in the Northwest. She wrote:
A question came up in my class today: do Mormons believe that people can become gods?
A.L.
Yes, I was raised to understand that this is Mormon doctrine. But the way it’s taught on any given Sunday sounds more like this:
Mormons believe that we are the children of Heavenly Parents, that our spirits lived with our Heavenly Parents before our mortal lives, and that we came to earth on the plan that we should gain experience through mortality and prepare to return to our Heavenly Parents. Like traditional Christians, Mormons believe that salvation from sin through Jesus Christ is what makes this return possible, but the kind of eternal experience the soul gets to share in and enjoy depends on his or her preparation. And it is a Mormon teaching that souls continue to grow, progress, and experience throughout the eternities, and that part of that expansive experience is to become like our Heavenly Parents.
There is no lounging in the Mormon concept of heaven. No clouds, no wings. Nope. We continue do the most important things that souls are capable of—learning, loving, creating—but on a more sanctified, spiritually generative level. We have families and care for them. Just as our own Heavenly Parents did.
So, yes, as I understand it, it is a traditional Mormon teaching that human beings can become gods, but in the same spirit that children can grow up and become parents without displacing the priority and sovereignty of their own parents.
This doctrine is viewed as heresy by the rest of the Christian world. It’s also one of the boldest claims Mormon doctrine makes, so it has been the subject of a great deal of sensationalism. Anti-Mormon ministries that were most active in the 1980s (but continue to this day) love to sensationalize this idea. The most egregious of the anti-Mormon movies, The Godmakers, focused in on this idea, helping in part to promote the cartoonish sensationalization that Mormons believe in getting our own planets, which I’ve never heard anyone discuss seriously.
Perhaps in response to this sensationalization, LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley appeared to distance himself and the Church from this doctrine in interviews given in 1997 and 1998. This and evidence that the concept of godhood is less frequently addressed in talks by LDS Church leaders than it was a few decades ago have led Mormonism’s most perceptive observers to wonder if the doctrine is being deemphasized. Jana Riess recently wrote in the Christian Century: “Does that mean that Mormons no longer believe that they can become gods? It is difficult to say. Many Mormons no longer think about the topic at all; it has become an insignificant aspect of contemporary theological expression. The idea may someday fade away, just as the church’s encouragement of plural marriage—once a cornerstone not just of Mormon practice but of its belief system—has faded away.”
But it also may be the case that this doctrine is just one that Mormons shy away from discussing openly. I grew up hearing the phrase: “As man is, God once was, as God is, man may become,” lines attributed to the nineteenth-century Mormon leader Lorenzo Snow. And in preparing to write this blog entry, I read again the 1844 Joseph Smith sermon known as the “King Follett Discourse”: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! … 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, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.” Smith continued: “Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement.”
Unorthodox Mormon though I may be, I am struck by the beauty of these lines and this idea. It’s one of the most powerful and distinctive elements of traditional Mormon doctrine. It’s one I’m glad to own.
What do you think, Mormon readers, is this doctrine being deemphasized? I’d love to hear from you too, non-Mo folks.
Send your query to askmormongirl@gmail.com, or follow askmormongirl on Twitter.
I love this doctrine.
From “Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young” -
“Simply to take the path pointed out in the Gospel by those who have given us the plan of salvation, is to take the path that leads to life, to eternal increase; it is to pursue that course wherein we shall never, never lose what we obtain, but continue to collect, to gather together, to increase, to spread abroad, and extend to an endless duration. Those persons who strive to gain eternal life, gain that which will produce the increase their hearts will be satisfied with. Nothing less than the privilege of increasing eternally, in every sense of the word, can satisfy the immortal spirit (DBY, 93).”
There’s another Church president proclaiming the doctrine, published in a recent manual, and findable via search on lds.org.
I’d be surprised to find an active Mormon that doesn’t believe in this doctrine.
What’s more controversial is what actually happens once you’re there.
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High (Isa 14:12-14).
These five “I wills” of Satan. This was the beginning of sin in the universe. This was the beginning of the rebellion against God’s government and God’s kingdom, and they came with Satan’s willing against the will of God.
Now Isaiah tells us exactly what the iniquity was. It was his declaring, “I will,” in opposition to God’s will. And anytime you declare your will in opposition to God’s will, that’s sin. That’s rebellion. Rebellion against God. Sin is the failure to do the will of God, to surrender, to submit to the will of God. “I will ascend into heaven. I will sit also. I will exact my throne above the stars of God.” Stars of God being the angels of God. “I’m going to exalt above them. I will sit also on the mount of the congregation on the sides of the north. I will ascend above the heights. I will be like the Most High.” Interesting. The climactic “I will” of Satan: “I will be like God.”
Shakespeare in the one play has someone addressing Cromwell, “Oh, Cromwell, flee ambition. For by this sin the angels fell.” I will be like God.
I will be like God=I will make myself like God, in my own way, by my own devices and power and authority.
God inviting a person to, as promised, be a joint-heir with Christ and share in all his power, glory and dominion is a different thing entirely. The first is a willful act of sin, the second an act of God’s grace.
I had that same thought, WGC. “I will” is an entirely different statement from the “I know” that I’ve read Mormons write about often.
It seems to me that mormon doctine changes with the times. Like the whole thing with the blacks or even polygamy. Once it comes to light and there is controversy mormons come out and say “oh we don’t belive in that anymore”.
Know your facts before you make blanket statements.
Polygamy was controversial from the moment it was revealed. The government tried to stamp it out for a good 20 years before the Church eliminated it, and then it was because the Federal government was going to dismantle the Church if it didn’t stop. But the Book of Mormon says that polygamy is wicked unless the Lord ordains it, and that it is only ordained for a period of time.
The blacks/priesthood issue was a hot issue for 8 or 10 years, but the heat had been gone (protests, threatened boycotts of BYU sports, etc.) for years before the Church changed that, and again, early statements by Brigham Young stated that it would be temporary, so someday it would end.
The doctrine of exaltation has never had any limitations on it. It has always been described as an eternal principle, and is a foundation for all that we do in preparation for eternal life in the Temple.
Eternal progression is one doctrine that keeps me coming back. One of the alternatives in traditional Christianity, that of spending the eternities endlessly stuck on adoration mode, is less attractive.
I totally agree, Mark!
An afterlife filled with happy, happy, zen-joy, where life is perfect and I no longer face any challenges or opportunities for growth whatsoever…?
Sounds more like hell to me.
Eternity is a l–o–n–g time to be filled with nothing but “joy” and rest.
I think Adam and Eve were on to something. All they had to do was stay away from the forbidden fruit, and they could have lived in paradise forever. Apparently everyone comes to the point where enough is enough! {And yes, I know there was MUCH more behind Eve’s actions, but that is just one of the many lessons I take from it.}
I have a niece who was raised as a “Non-Denominational Christian” and a few months ago, she said to me
“Don’t Mormons believe they can become Gods? I just don’t think that’s right. My church says it’s blasphemy.”
I then explained to her that we don’t believe that we will replace God, rather, we will be joint heirs with Christ in our Heavenly Father’s kingdom. I also explained that we believe that God is an exalted man, and that He had a father {the God of His world} before Him. She said that made much more sense, and I told her not to take my word for it. I told her: “God is your father. He will not withhold any truth from you. You should ask for yourself. Ask if He is an exalted man. Ask if He intends for you, His daughter, to inherit all that He has.”
She did just that, and came to me the next day with tears in her eyes and said that when she asked in prayer, she was filled with a warm, amazing feeling unlike anything she had ever felt before. She also said that this doctrine made more sense than any other explanation she had heard before. A mortal father would want his children to inherit his kingdom/business/etc. So why would an immortal, exalted father be any different?
How could a “loving Father” want to withhold His divine inheritance from His children? It is my firm belief that he simply WOULDN’T and DOESN’T. Sure, anti’s like to misconstrue it and call it blasphemy, but seriously, WHY are we here if not to gain exaltation? Does God just think it’s funny to send His children to earth to starve, fight in wars, and struggle all the days of their lives only to have them return home to live….exactly as they lived before with NO progression or true reward? Doesn’t sound like any father I know.
So, I love this doctrine as well.
Our spirits recognize truth. Simple as that.
A happy, happy, zen joy, where life is perfect??? Where do you get this from? I’ve never heard any followers of Christ describe the afterlife like this?!
I’m sorry if that comment seemed presumptuous.
I guess I don’t know, Christi, perhaps you could tell me.
Where does a Christian who believes that “We are saved by grace through faith” believe we will go? Certainly not a heaven where works and progression would be happening…? That would be contradictory.
Here is my line of reasoning:
As I understand it, the concept of “works” contradicts the very core of traditional Christian faith…at least, that is what the non-denominational Christians I have had extensive conversations with have led me to believe.
For a person to believe that they must perform “works” as a means of gaining exaltation…well, that is perceived as “trying to be their own savior,” and/or somehow doubting, or not fully accepting Christ’s infinite atonement…yes?
So, if there should be no works on earth {you know, other than accepting Christ as Lord and Savior} then how does it stand to reason that there would be works in the life here-after? God’s doctrine is one eternal round. And if there are no required works on earth or in heaven, what exactly are we going to do for, well, eternity?
And if, as the Christian faith clearly believes, it is evil, prideful, and blasphemous to believe that we can, in fact, be one with the Gods someday, then surely they don’t believe this Mormon doctrine is true.
That’s a given.
So, if the doctrine of eventual Godhood is NOT true, and works are unnecessary {and even sinful, in some respects} as a matter of principle, you’ll forgive me if I see a VERY simplistic and less than fulfilling view of heaven from the traditional Christian perspective. We are left with the 2 traditional options of “happy heaven for the righteous” or “miserable hell for the wicked”
…right?
Does the bible have an in-depth series of scripture that outlines the workings of heaven in explicit detail? Have I missed it?
And I’m not saying that Christians are wrong, or that they are bad people for believing as they do. I’m simply saying that the lack of answers leaves me unfulfilled. If you remove Godhood and “works” from the big picture, the big picture gets pretty little.
Doctrine that teaches that my Father in heaven loves me as a literal child {a.k.a I am the spirit daughter of a literal God} and a Father who wants me to have all that He has and be all that He is. MAKES SENSE. Period. It’s how I feel about my own children. I don’t want them to grow up to serve me and live under my thumb and be less than me. I want them to be more. I want them to be everything they can be. The full realization of their potential will bring glory and honor to me…because I am their parent. I {in part} created them and now my creation has gone one to realize the fullest expression of itself. What could be more beautiful?
When I read this doctrine, my spirit is overwhelmed with a sense of peace, because it remembers, and says “Yes, this.”
I want to be like my Father.
Not kind of like Him, and not ALMOST like Him, but exactly like Him.
Put simply:
I want to inherit a portion of His company…not work as a cashier in one of His chain stores.
And I believe this is what He wants as well. For all of His children.
I think you are talking about faith vs works salvation? We believe we are made right with God by faith, and not by works. However, we also believe faith without works is dead. I believe we both pray like this: Our Father who art in heaven Hallowed be Thy name Thy Kingdom come Thy will be done On earth as it is in heaven Give us this day our daily bread And forgive us our depts as we forgive our deptors Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil For Thine is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory forever and ever. Amen
Sorry my computer is acting up so I couldn’t finish. Our Father’s will is that his Kingdom would come . . . here and there. So I am about doing the will of my Father thru Christ Jesus empowered by the Holy Spirit which was the gift given me when Christ saved me through faith. Does that make sense. Works matter to you and to me . . . for me the emphasis is on faith first. I’m not sure when I talk to my mormon relatives that we aren’t closer here than 30 years ago in that it seems that they believe they are empowered by the Spirit as well. Perhaps the doctrine of the Trinity is a bigger difference here . . . as well as other doctrines. Works and doing the will of the Father and bringing his Kingdom here and now are not. At least as I understand Scripture.
Oh dear . . . debt and debtors . . . so sorry . . . ignore the grammar . . . my computer will not let me go back to correct errors or retype sentences so that they make more sense when I reread them. This site bounces around . . . must be my security or the age of my computer. Sorry! Blessings and Peace
@Christi,
I do believe that the concept of works is biblical.
The biblical teaching of faith, I assume, you already know. Of course, the Mormon doctrine on works is based in part on 2 Nephi 25 in the Book of Mormon, “For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.”
So we also believe that it is by grace that we are saved, but with the qualifier that we must do something to earn that grace. I assume you believe in hell, which means that you believe that not all are extended God’s grace.
In the book of James chapter 2, he tells us faith without works is dead. Also qualifying that works is necessary.
In the book of Ether chapter 12 in the Book of Mormon, Moroni teaches that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen but that we will not receive a witness of our faith until we have a trial of our faith.
Jesus Christ himself taught in Matthew 16:27 “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.”
Also, in 1 Corinthians 3,Paul to the Corinthians said “Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.”
So from those teachings in the New Testament I believe works is shown to be a biblical concept, one that is ignored by many Christian teachers, weather they be priest, pastor or what have you.
I don’t think it’s being deemphasized at all. There may be a difference in the approach of how it’s talked about because, like most doctrines, when not built up to properly it can sound a bit out of place. I loved your build up in this post, but I don’t think the deemphasizing is accurate. In the Gospel Principles manual (given and taught to investigators and less-active members) it mentions very plainly that one of the blessings of exaltation is “They will become gods.” http://lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng&query=%22they+will+become+gods%22
As a non-LDS, I don’t find the doctrine shocking or disturbing or any of the reactions that seem to be provoked in the evangelical Christians who made The God Makers or other anti-Mormon works. But then again, I’m a skeptic and have no investment in any particular set of religious doctrines at all, so there’s no room for thoughts of heresy when doctrines collide.
It does have a logic that I find appealing, as well as they way it humanizes the concept of God. Not too far from any of the Indian religions, is it?
But as Ryan mentions, I think the things that make outsiders really go “Wha’?” are the snippets of specifics we hear about the afterlife — or the beforelife or whatever it’s referred to in the faith. The mention of Kolob in the Book of Abraham is so oddly specific that I fear it’s pretty easy for critics to highlight as a fringe concept.
I’m well aware that the planets stuff may be viewed by most to be metaphorical. Still, it seems to me that it’s the perceived mixture of science and religion that freaks non-Mormons out. There’s a much clearer line between the evangelical literalist idea of creationism and the evidence-based scientific theory of evolution than I imagine is represented in LDS scripture. But please correct me if I’m wrong! It’s just my perspective as an outsider.
Regardless, I’m glad you addressed this topic. I really enjoy reading your blog and learning what it means to you to be Morman.
I don’t find it being deemphasized in church meetings. While there is no lesson that specifically addresses this doctrine, it is alluded to in many lessons and definitely still believed by LDS members. It is one of our doctrines that makes us unique and particular. It is beyond me why Hinckley responded the way he did. Denying Mormons believe we can become Gods is like equivocating on whether we drink coffee, both are hallmarks of our faith and saying we don’t emphasize them anymore is just silly because all the evidence points to the contrary.
Jay, I Agree! It seems like there are a lot of members who won’t stand up proudly and proclaim our unique Beliefs. The whole issue of whether Mormons are Christians or not seems to cause a lot of members to water down our beliefs in an effort to try to fit into the traditional Christian Mold. Why are members so afraid to proclaim what our Beloved prophet Joseph Smith taught so clearly in D&C 1:30 that “this Church is The only true and living church on the face of the whole earth. Didn’t Joseph declare to the world that, when the Lord appear to him in the grove, he was told that all the other church in the world were an abomination.
So I don’t understand why President Hinckley tried to lead people to believe we know a lot about that and that it isn’t emphasized. It’s foundational to the plan of salvation that we can obtain Godhood. If you’re not willing to stand up for what we really believe… the foundation doctrines restored through Joseph Smith, The you are not truly a Latter Day Saint. You are conforming to traditional christianity. We shouln’t equivocate on any of our unique and peculiar Beliefs… whether that be our goal to reach Godhood, or Celestial (Plural) Marriage) D&C 131 and 132, Or any other doctrine of Exaltation. The Mormon church is the only church with the power, and authority, to administer in the Ordinances that lead exaltation (ie. Baptism, Temple Endowment, Sealings etc) We should be screaming this message to ends of the earth…. not trying to fit in with the traditional Christian thinking. All this watered down mormonism
gives people the wrong impression.
Brian . . . what a relief! As a nonmormon the dumbing down of these beliefs for the sake of blending in has been very confusing over the 30 years that I have been exposed to the mormon faith of some family members. I wondered if there were new revelations that were changing everything. It really has seemed as if their faith has been evolving more main stream. And, you are right they often bring up being identified as “Christians” the same description linking them to all the churches in the world they have been told are abominations. I wish Mitt Romney would be as direct as you have been. Thank you!
You might be interested to know that the Eastern Orthodox, who very much qualify as “traditional” Christians, have long taught “theosis” — the process of human beings sharing in the energies, though not the core, unknowable essence, of the Divine. What Jesus, the second Person of the Trinity, is by nature, humans can become by grace. As the Church father Athanasius famously put it, “God became man so that man might become God.” Though theosis has not been articulated as fully in the West, in recent years, there has been great interest amongst theologians in the Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran traditions on the topic and an especially fruitful dialog between Finnish Lutherans and Russian Orthodox. I don’t know of any direct link between Orthodox theosis and LDS teachings.
An interesting comparison, one I’d heard before but had slipped my mind. It goes nicely both with consideration of Christ as older brother, and with John’s teaching in the New Testament that through Christ we become joint heirs.
I brought this exact question up in church a few weeks ago during a lesson from the Gospel Principles manual chapter 47, Exaltation. Here are some quotes from the manual (for those unfamiliar, this lesson book is on the most basic of LDS beliefs).
“Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:
1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:62).
2. They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23).
3. They will be united eternally with their righteous family members and will be able to have eternal increase.
4. They will receive a fulness of joy.
5. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have —all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19–20).
Joanna,
This was a well written articulation of what I understand mormon doctrine to be. I would add one more source. The talk ‘The False Gods we Worship’ by Spencer Kimball. I encountered this talk on my mission when I read Hugh Nibley’s book ‘Approaching Zion’, but the text can be found here: http://www.nauvoo.com/library/kimball-false.html.
This is the specific text of the talk that comes to mind when discussing the whole ‘get my own planet’ doctrine. Its not totally overt, but it assumes the doctrine. Here it is:
“One man I know of was called to a position of service in the Church, but he felt that he couldn’t accept because his investments required more attention and more of his time than he could spare for the Lord’s work. He left the service of the Lord in search of Mammon, and he is a millionaire today.
But I recently learned an interesting fact: If a man owns a million dollars worth of gold at today’s prices, he possesses approximately one 27-billionth of all the gold that is present in the earth’s thin crust alone. This is an amount so small in proportion as to be inconceivable to the mind of man. But there is more to this: The Lord who created and has power over all the earth created many other earths as well, even “worlds without number” (Moses 1:33); and when this man received the oath and covenant of the priesthood (D&C 84:33-44), he received a promise from the Lord of “all that my Father hath” (vs 38). To set aside all these great promises in favor of a chest of gold and a sense of carnal security is a mistake in perspective of colossal proportions. To think that he has settled for so little is a saddening and pitiful prospect indeed; the souls of men are far more precious than this.”
From the Gospel Principles book, which every Latter-day Saint congregation just finished going through as part of a two-year Sunday school curriculum. The first lines of the last chapter, titled “Exaltation.”
“When we lived with our Heavenly Father, He explained a plan for our progression. We could become like Him, an exalted being.”
From D&C 132:20, for those who obey the “new and everlasting covenant,” whatever that means:
“Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.”
While we may not phrase it as “becoming Gods,” until this verse is removed from the D&C, and until we stop saying such things in our official manuals, this doctrine may be have been de-emphasized in place of a more clear focus on the Savior (or whatever you think we’re emphasizing now), but it is not gone.
Well-composed response to the question! It is highly consistent with my experience in the church. The Jana Riess quote is off point and distracting, in my view. Doctrines do not change in response to public opinion.
The distancing himself from the eternal progression doctrine was alarming for me. Worse than alarming was that this was done on a “Larry King Live” show. As far as I am aware the 12 Aoostles and the First Presidency decide doctrine after fast and prayer not when one member of the quorum buddies up to Mammon. However, this could be true given GBH then when on to downplay that he was a prophet and preferred the term President of the Church. If this is the case then all Mormons need to know – the church is not the current leadership. Mormonism is the people, their collective faith/lack of faith, actual history and our strange and wonderful doctrine of eventual universal salvation – for all. Lots of things make me doubt my personal faith but eternal progression ain’t one of them. There are so many other “weird and less deserving” doctrine which could be trashed!
New testament say we can be “joint heirs” with Christ. This has been taken by some to support the idea of divine heirship capability. In law, there is a concept call “joint tenancy.” Wjere two people are JTs to an asset, like real property, they have an equal, undivided interest in the asset. Think of Man’s potential relationship with diety the same.
though this doctrine appears as heresy to many “traditional Christians” it is one that i believe will naturally begin to be emphasized more and more as it will be appealing to people of eastern cultures and even to secular humanists. i believe that the future of Mormon evangelism will find most fertile ground within the cultures of the east where a belief in eternally co-existent spirits, mind body connection, and the dialectical balance of apparent opposites are already taught and practiced. i think some of the aspects of mormon faith that are tied to traditionally christian and protestant roots (both in culture and theology) will continue to be challenged and that mormons will continue to gather and claim truths from eastern traditions. they are already within mormon scripture we just haven’t had the cultural framework to flesh them out.
WRT Orthodox, an interesting comparison, one I’d heard before but had slipped my mind. It goes nicely both with consideration of Christ as older brother, and with John’s teaching in the New Testament that through Christ we become joint heirs.
I routinely miss a large portion of doctrine whenever a discussion about the deification of man. That is the entire temple ceremony, from initiatories to dealings and everything in between. Of course Mormons believe we can become Gods. All temple blessings, covenants and ritual point to that. Denying that is indeed anti-Mormon.
I just like the idea of eternal progression and creation. That’s god enough for me (or goddess) and I don’t really care about the specifics and don’t really understand why others get so uptight about the specifics either (like if we’ll have a world and what Kolob is really like.) It will be what it will be and maybe focusing on what we will become in this life is a better use of our time and angst.
But a thoughtful and well-written post!
Really like the idea of being co-heirs with Jesus Christ and eventually becoming Gods. But I dont like the idea that God should have been a man like us. My mind goes spinning with Gods over Gods over Gods over Gods.
But I will live the gospel and see what the afterlife brings.
“the official position of the Catholicism is that of the infallible pope, yet few lay Catholics really seem to believe it, while conversely, the official position of Mormonism is that of a fallible prophet, yet few lay Mormons really seem to believe it.” Michael R. Ash
As I read it, the sermon taught by Joseph Smith states that Heavenly Father was like Jesus Christ – or that Heavenly Father went through a mortal experience like what Jesus Christ did. He was mortal (as we are mortal) but it was like Christ was mortal (divine)- but not what each of us are right now. Jesus Christ did nothing except what he saw His Father do – literally. “…that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.”
The term exaltation is coming to replace this idea and when its defined in sources like Preach My Gospel and Gospel Principles, its true meaning is somewhat glossed over. I’ve had experiences where this was not taught to new members of the church until after their baptism and it was explained to me that its not a necessary bit of doctrine to understand prior to baptism. I find that troubling. To me, its one of the richest doctrines of the gospel, the key that makes everything work together and be for a meaningful, valuable purpose and glossing over it does a disservice to new members. Maybe it gets more people baptized and then they can wrestle with it later but what about the people who would find that to be the key to their conversion?
How do Mormons comport that teaching with what we learn in Isaiah 43:10-11?
“Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no Savior.”
And Genesis 3:5 the serpent tells Adam and Evil that they can be like gods:
“For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”
I’ve spoken to Mormons about spiritual evolution, but it has always been difficult for me to see how this is consistent with Scripture. I hope I do not come across as hostile, I am honestly curious to see the Mormon perspective.
Joseph, you don’t seem to have a reply yet. As a quick answer, the second scripture you quote uses the term “gods” as Mormons understand the concept of a “race of gods”, where our God is our father (thus the term Heavenly Father), and we are his offspring who have the potential to become like Him, able to know truth, choose right, live eternally, and control matter. The verse points out that in knowing good and evil, Adam and Eve have just taken a huge step in progression from their current state to becoming more like God.
As for scripture stating there is “only one God”, we have only one Heavenly Father. Only one god is our leader and takes responsibility for us, and there is only Him for us to take guidance from and to have any concern about. Remember that in biblical times, in both old and new testaments, the people of the covenant were always surrounded by other peoples with pluralistic traditions, who worshiped anywhere from several to dozens of gods at a time, choosing their favorite one, or whichever suited the worshipper’s need at the time. The children of Israel were thus CONSTANTLY warned not to fall into this mindset, as it was so prevalent. Falling into this trap was a monumental threat to their faith and identity. So the “one God” concept is emphasized far more in scripture. There is only one God for us to obey, and He is the only One –in human history– who has ever existed, as opposed to the myriads of invented gods of the pagan traditions.
Utahcanadian did a good job on God being over the pagan gods, but may I add more to the first point he/she raised about Isaiah’s verse. The verse is true only within this “sphere” or creation. In Mormon doctrine we live in Heavenly Father’s creation. We don’t know the extent of his creation—a planet, a solar system, a galaxy or this universe—but it is uniquely God’s creation. Everything within it is created by him. Within this sphere God is omnipotent, omniscient, and the only God. It can be inferred from the statement, “God was once as we are” that there were others of His spirit brothers and sisters who were also exalted and made gods, but they rule their own creations and have no power or authority in our Father’s creation. Thus, even though we posit the existence of many gods, there is only one who is OUR God. And he existed before he begot our spirits and before our creation was organized into existence. So, from our perspective, “before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” God the Father is our creator and Father, and always will be. No matter how long we exist, no matter what power we inherit, no matter what authority we receive, He will always be our Lord, God, and ruler.
This is very informative. Thank you!
The only issue I have with it is that there is no evidence of Divine guidance when it comes to the evolution of our species (speaking of our physical bodies). With that in mind, I’m a little skeptical that we can eventually create beings that look like ourselves in the eternities. Evolution, which is at its heart the non random natural selection of random genetic variants that increase the likelihood of reproduction, will most likely not generate an identical human form on another world.
And what would be evidence of divine guidance in human evolution?
How would you discern it from random evolution?
What if ALL evolution is divinely guided? How then would you know what non-guided evolution is?
I just wanted to thank you for your time and energy you put into your blog.
When you grow up mormon in Utah, it’s assumed everyone has the same large base of knowledge. For some reason I don’t seem to have it… at least not past the basics. (Maybe I just don’t put enough energy into researching topics.) You always give me a great starting point to learn more about myself and my faith.
Thanks for expanding my mind, my faith and my knowledge.
I remember Elder Boyd K. Packer giving a talk in General Conference in the mid-1980′s about this subject. I had not really thought about the subject much before he made the comment that it is thhe natural way of things, that children grow up to be like their parents: the animal kingdom is that way, we are that way with our parents (and our children), and it is natural that we would/could progress to be like our Heavenly parents.
When I heard that, it struck me so strongly as correct doctrine, that I made a note in my scriptures and have referenced it for the last 25 years.
I think it’s being deemphasized in General Conference, but not in serious Mormon theology (i.e. seminary, institute, and even sunday school).
The question of whether King Follett should be canonized (it hasn’t, unless you view printing in the ensign as canonization) is also a very interesting discussion.
When asked about it in those same interviews in 1997 and 1998, I recall President Hinckley saying, “I don’t really know that much about it.”
As you pointed out, there isn’t much serious discussion about “having our own planets”, because we simply don’t know much about it. I like this more humble approach – it feels good to me.
It’s plain as day, but not recognize by those who don’t have “eyes to see” and “ears to hear” as the bible would put it. The concept of atonement, becoming one with God is there for all the Christian world, but they reject it for some reason because they think it is indeed “robbery to be equal with God”. We are in the same form of Jesus, Jesus said he came here and goes into the next life to prepare a place for us. He prays that we can be one with him as he is one with the Father. The act of atonement is by his sacrifice and through his grace make us worthy of becoming one with him.
And yet, somehow some would think it perfectly normal that by being “one” Jesus really meant “an entirely different thing all together”. I
From Psalms, “Ye are gods sons of the most high”
From John, “You would receive the power to become the sons of God”
Even you can find dozens of influences in the early-late Christian church that are still there.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons stated that God “became what we are in order to make us what he is himself.”
St. Athanasius wrote that “God became man so that men might become gods.”
St. Basil the Great stated that “becoming a god” is the highest goal of all.
Now for some reason or another these teachings were lost to the greater part of Christendom, but they are taught in LDS churches, but the emphasis is really in the proper place. It’s touched on with a bit of depth maybe once a year or once every couple years. It’s certainly not front and center, even though you might say it’s the ultimate goal of our existence.
The reason it’s not focused on is because it’s like driving on busy highway, with car pile-ups, pot holes, kids running across the road, etc. and you sitting back closing your eyes and imagining how great it will be if you make it to the destination.
My point being, of course, that if anyone actually focuses heavily on this doctrine they are putting the destination before the journey. We don’t earn the right of exaltation, but it is given to us conditioned on our faithfulness in accepting Christ by following him and to the degree that we’ve progressed and grown by his grace into exaltation in not only this life but in the eons beyond before that crowning glory comes.
I’m trying to cram as much doctrine into a sentence as I can. But ultimately, it’s rather simple as pointed out in principle, we are God’s children. Any perfect Father would want his Children to grow up to become like him. How could he want less of and for us?
But again, it’s clearly not something we talk about because in order to be like God, you have to actually do the things, in principle, that he did — such as showing love and charity to others. Serving them patiently and long sufferingly.
The great irony is so many assume Mormon’s want to be God’s Lording over planets but they’ve take on a strange notion of a God who said, that who ever is greatest should be servant to the least.
Thus, the path to Godhood is not found in commanding and lording over others, but trying to follow Christ beneath all things as best as we are able by serving others and being willing to sacrifice our time, talents, and even all that we have for God — and as God says to serve God we must serve our fellow man. So if you’re not willing to give all you have to your neighbor, you’re not ready yet to partake of his fulness. And really, I don’t think any of us are… But that’s the idea, and I agree with the author, it’s a beautiful one.
Who could possibly be upset that a bunch of Mormons have in the back of their mind that the greatest thing they can do in their life is serve others as Jesus did?
Well said.
Amen.
We don’t know what we believe anymore and we simply chalk it up to “continuing revelation”. Joanna, your blog posts are awesome, but their mere existence is evidence of the problem created by years of members hearing…and stating, “I know this church is… I know Joseph Smith is… I know I know I know I know I know”… a veritable cacophony of absolute knowledge professed from the behind a lectern, sometimes even produced by children, then often followed by an honest search for deeper understanding. The moment these covers get pulled back just a little, a whole stack of unexplained confusing doctrines (and history) jumps out at us and the best our leaders do is say “we don’t practice that anymore” or “it’s behind us”, or the recent press release that effectively states that anything any particular church leader has said at any point in time should not be considered as doctrine. Oops.
This I do know: The Church desperately seeks acceptance into and by mainstream Christianity, and therefore distances itself from some of the very doctrines that have made it unique and that many members have embraced for years, such as this concept of becoming gods through eternal progression.
I don’t believe Reiss was claiming that the mormon God doctrine will disappear like the some of the doctrines that governed priesthood or polygamy. There were interest groups meeting with church leaders with respect to the priesthood and the government threatened Utah’s statehood and the church’s existence with respect to polygamy. I don’t see anything like this happening with the mormon’s idea of God.
I an adequate description of the mormon’s concept of God is worth a doctoral dissertation. Accepting the claims made in the past (e.g. the King Follett discourse) combined with some of the scriptures of today leave room for new debate on the ontology of God with respect to omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, the problem of evil, etc. (Although, I do believe omnipresence is out of the question for God because he is said to be a man, but could be discussed with respect to the HG). E.g. in the BOM it talks about God ceasing to be God if he did not act in a certain way. Could this mean that God has a priesthood that can be taken from him if he does not act accordingly. Also, e.g. think about God’s purpose in Moses 1:39 “To bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” If God was once a man, could this be interpreted as a form of humanism…
(I also believe that mormonism is the perfect test case for religious epistemology. e.g. testimony meetings, HG confirmation, and revelation vs. other forms of knowledge)
Anyway, these are some ideas I have had for a while that I wish I could cash out on. Apparently, before correlation, the nature of God and many other topics were discussed and debated in church. Now, we have manuals and norms for our church discussion; and, it’s not a bad thing. Yet, I do feel that there needs to be more avenues for intellectual mormons to critically discuss doctrinal claims as mentioned above and what is entailed by them.
It could be argued that interpretation of scripture is “what made the original church organized by Christ become corrupt.” I would respond to such an argument by stating that in no way would these interpretations be claimed as revelation, but simply interpretations by men. The hierarchy of the church could still be preserved; and, if leaders chose to accept such interpretations (perhaps the Holy Ghost reveals the truth to them), I would hope members of the church would appreciate such a move.
Anyway, I hope this comment is somewhat coherent. Good topic AMG.
Steve . . . WOW! You have just put into words my experience as I have walked,lived, and listened to loved ones who happen to be Mormon over the past 30 years. It’s been very confusing for me . . . I’ve learned not to question . . . still I continue to listen . . . the changes have been sooo sweeping over the years . . . still I’ve never heard . . . we were wrong about that . . . or any reconciliation between the past and present . . . just “a moving on” if you will to some new revelation. If it is confusing to the ones I love . . . they never express it . . . and I wonder . . . about a faith that doesn’t form new questions . . . and I wonder . . . why they don’t wonder???
Christi and Steve,
The simple fact of the matter is the church is built and founded on revelation. Personal revelation between you and God, and a knowledge and a relationship with God confirmed through the power of the Holy Ghost. I don’t need a prophet, who speaks to a very wide audience to constantly sooth my concerns about why this isn’t focused on or why that isn’t said.
The simple fact of the matter is, what the Apostles are teaching is what the church broadly needs to hear, but not always tailored to what individuals who have a sophisticated knowledge of the gospel, and hopefully one born of personal testimony through revelation.
I’ve received very personal experiences and revelations on the matter of this topic and had a life-changing experiencing that was the culmination of years of turning my heart to God (by seeking to up lift and point others to him others as the Lord does).
I can only say, the kind of relationship God wants to have from you is through your faithfulness is following the Lord, and I might say, it comes readily if you study, ponder, and ask, with a sincere intent, but only while proving yourself through two key principles: charity and virtue. The pure love of Christ, and striving to live a life where you avoid sin. There’s no doubt that if you can do this, you’ll come to a more sure knowledge of the nature of God and the eternity if you desire it. I know it because the scriptures and prophets have testified of it, but I also know it, more importantly, because I’ve experienced this more sure knowledge I speak of.
The shorter version is this. If you want to know God, and understand more the purpose of this life as it relates to the possibility of eternity, you need to consider what his Apostles, etc. are saying now, and seek to put it into your life. But don’t assume that what they are saying is the culmination or the end of revelation, but it’s the starting point. Some of the “mysteries” of life are simply those things that that, although they can be taught and written down, as they have been in the past, they aren’t truly “owned” by us as individuals until we receive them from God. And it comes from putting his words to the test and following him.
As a Mo I think it is testimony to what we believe Jesus can do with us. As I reflect on my own folly and foibles, if Jesus can make me like Him or our Father in Heaven then that is truly a witness of how powerful His redeeming love is.
Chris . . . may I say I love the part where you share YOUR “with God life” . . . “experiences” . . . “journey” thus far? The rest of it left me wondering . . . are you assuming that I don’t know or experience life with God? I can’t tell . . . I can’t hear your voice.
If Jesus can make me like Him then that is truly a witness of how powerful Hid redeeming love is.
That we can become like our Heavenly Parents is the whole point of this mortal process. So its not going anywhere, but I think right now, education that we Mormons aren’t “weird” and should be viewed with suspicion is what is being focused on the national level. President Hinckley brought us into the media age and now President Monson is guiding us to help one another no matter our creeds. We are members of this world and we are a powerful force for good and THAT is I think the message being promoted lately. It does not change a fundamental doctrine in our potential for progression. It does not change the POINT of temples.
In case the quotes from the early church aren’t enough to make this feel comfortable for you, consider these passages:
Romans 8:16-17: The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
John 16:15: All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
In other words, Christ received all the Father has, and is glorified with him. Through his grace he offers us the opportunity to be joint-heirs with him, meaning we will share in all the Father has, and be glorified with Christ.
I think a lot of early Christians understood this to mean we are being invited to become part of a fellowship of gods together with Christ. Certainly a lot of early Latter-day Saints felt this way, and Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and others gave eloquent voice to it.
Hello Mormon Girl,
I am not a Mormon and do not agree with much of LDS Doctrine however I can say that I find something very refresing here. You are actually OWNING what you have been taught. You may say it has not been emphasized, but you have not given me the standeard,.. “It’s not official,… or We have a living prophet and he doesn’t teach that” line. I appreciate that you are not trying to wiggle out of anything. I applaude you even if I disagree with you. Serious questions. Families are forever is a common hope for Mormons. How can Entire Families stay intact and yet “progress” in every way as Elohim must have? Also, if you don’t get your own planet,.. shouldn’t this one be a bit crowded by now,… logically speaking shouldn’t new God’s get new planets to rule? One final one if you will indulge me,.. if every God was once a man,.. where did the first man come from? Thanks for sticking by your guns,… not blindly mind you (I am assuming) but for not doing what I have seen so many other times.
This needs to be stated clearly—the idea that we believe we will get our own planet is made up by anti-mormons. We believe we can be like Heavenly Father and that means we will have spiritual offspring and we will create—organize—a place for them. Just like Heavenly Father. And we are told that He has created “worlds without number.”
As for families forever, our doctrine is that all exalted humans will be “sealed” as a family “chain”—a patri-lineal order. Adam will be at the head, sealed to his wife, his sons sealed to their wives, their sons sealed to their wives, etc. Adam is the head of the family, his sons are under him, their sons are the grandsons, then the great grandsons, and the great great grandsons, etc., on down to the last worthy husband and wife. The entire super family is bound, or sealed by covenants of the Holy Priesthood. Those not exalted are individuals and are not sealed to anyone—they may make friendships and alliances, come together to accomplish a task, etc, but none of these groupings have any force of authority. They are temporary bonds without any intrinsic power. A good analogy would be the inherent legal rights of a marriage as opposed to the rights of a friendship. Currently, rights can be created and legally agreed to among non-relate4d people, but I want to keep this simple. A family has inherent rights which non-family does not.
Does that make any sense, Kenn?
I just read my post. A better way of stating the family structure is that Adam and Eve are the head of the family, their sons/wives the second generation, their sons/wives the third generation, etc. The inherent authority of the sealed family is that husband and wife together hold the Patriarchal Priesthood, which can only be conferred through the marriage covenant, and is held and exercised jointly or communally. This is the priesthood power and authority that binds the couples to each other and the generations together. And because it is a communal priesthood, those not exalted—and thus not sealed—are individuals in power and authority. A much lesser power and authority.
I’ve read this paragraph a couple of times: “This needs to be stated clearly—the idea that we believe we will get our own planet is made up by anti-mormons. We believe we can be like Heavenly Father and that means we will have spiritual offspring and we will create—organize—a place for them. Just like Heavenly Father. And we are told that He has created “worlds without number.”
I understand you to say: You will get to be like Heavenly Father. Heavenly Father has created worlds without number (lots’a worlds). You will need to create a place for your spiritual offspring. Since you will will be like Heavenly Father, and Heavenly Father has created so many worlds then you will be creating a world for your spiritual offspring or maybe you will get your own world from one of the ones that are beyond number.
Perhaps a “planet” and a “world” are not the same thing . . . . . . ?
The phrase is from the anti-mormons and is never heard in the Church. “Magic underwear,” “Temple Mormon,” “Lucifer and Christ are brothers,” are also common phrases from anti-mormons that members of the church don’t use. They are the result of boiling down chapters of doctrine to one phrase and making that phrase glib and derogatory. We won’t get a planet when we are exalted—we will be given the power and authority to create. To create spirit children and to create places for them to dwell and work out THEIR salvation. I am of the opinion that a creation is a new universe (but that isn’t doctrine, as there has been no doctrine given on what a “creation” is) so I feel that an exalted being gets to have far more than a planet. But the main issue with this phrase is that it is inaccurate and derogatory, and it pains me to see some members here using it as well.
“…if every God was once a man,.. where did the first man come from?”
It has not been revealed to us. Possibly, because our minds are capable of only a very limited vision of Eternity and infinity, it cannot be revealed to us. Our minds are bound in a mortal, finite brain that imposes limits that I assume will not be present when we are once again spirits and later resurrected beings. Until that time it is a mystery which we can contemplate and try to get some understanding, but there is nothing official. But it doesn’t bother me because I have a spiritual confirmation that exaltation is a true doctrine of God, and that gives me the patience to wait for a full understanding.
I loved this.
Well said…and very brief.
Brevity is not my strong suit, but I’m working on it
I have literally just about exploded my brain thinking about where the first God came from and the vast expansiveness of the universe. It’s all very fun {and exhausting} to think about. But I love what you said about spiritual confirmation. When my mind ponders the doctrines of exaltation, my spirit echoes resounding “Yes. Yes, this. I remember this.” every time.
I taught this lesson in Gospel Essentials today and definitely did not shy away from teaching new members and visitors that through God’s grace we can become like Him. “For with God, nothing shall be impossible.” – Luke 1:39
dha
Joanna,
Yes it has been de-emphasized recently and especially with Mitt running for president. In fact the LDS church usually meets with the Utah legislature for lunch each year but it was cancelled this year. Another step for the church to take a back seat position in politics. It is an embarising doctrine for LDS members as was polygamy and blacks ineligibility for the priesthood. LDS is trying to be mainstream and these odd beliefs will keep popping up so I feel sorry for the rank and file LDS.
Far from being de-emphasized I feel that it has taken it’s rightful place in doctrinal discussion.
Church leaders don’t address it because it doesn’t need addressing. It’s what we believe and the doctrine itself hasn’t changed. It’s very clearly stated in church manuals that we believe that we will be joint-heirs with Christ. The key I believe is in the nature of church leadership.
The prophet and apostles give us guidance for our day that helps us live more Christlike lives so that we can return to our Heavenly Father. Whether or not that entails creating our own planet or not is irrelevant.
The purpose of the gospel is to uplift us to be more full of charity, or the pure love of Christ, which if we fully partake of makes us into the type of person who can abide a celestial glory. This should be our ultimate goal. To be a man or woman of God who is full of love and grace. Our reward should not motivate us! The only reward I need anyway is my eternal family, irregardless of the details of how we’re spending eternity.
Great stuff Mormon Girl. I’m going to bed tonight, feeling good. Thanks for your blog and your voice.
I’m a Russian Orthodox woman with a theological interest in the LDS church, mostly on an academic level. I just want you to know that the Early Church Fathers, particularly St. Basil, spoke of Theosis, or the idea that through the purification of Sin through our L-rd, Christ Jesus, we could achieve the same perfection that he had in life. I think that your theology is beautiful! Thanks for this great explanation.
I’m a Russian Orthodox woman with a theological interest in the LDS church, mostly on an academic level. I just want you to know that the Early Church Fathers, particularly St. Basil, spoke of Theosis, or the idea that through the purification of Sin through our L-rd, Christ Jesus, we could achieve the same perfection that he had in life. I think that your theology is beautiful! Thanks for this great explanation.