Exaltation, Man Becoming a God

Department of Christian Defense ^

[delacoert]

     The fundamental difference between Mormonism and Christianity is the LDS doctrine of "many Gods." Polytheism (i.e., the belief that more than one true God exists) is roundly condemned in biblical theology (e.g., Deut. 6:4; Isa. 43:10; 44:6, 8; 45:5). It is this belief alone that excludes Mormons from being Christian. Mormons assert that God the Father (and Jesus) was once a man that lived on an earth, similar to this one, whereby He worked His way up and earn His Godhood (salvation), by obedience to the law (just as did Jesus). This entire process: spirit child (pre-existence) to mortal man (on earth)- to a God (of His own planet(s) sometime after the final resurrection) is termed by Mormons as "Eternal Progression."

     Thus, the ultimate goal for the Mormon male is "Exaltation." Exaltation is the heart of Mormon theology. Exaltation in LDS vernacular, simple means: man progressing to the status of Godhood (salvation in its truest sense). Hence, exaltation is the ultimate future goal of most every devoted Mormon male.

     Of course, exaltation is future. That is, worthy Mormon candidates may, become a God in the after-life (after the resurrection). However, they must, here on earth, first prove themselves worthy by obeying the mandates of the LDS Church, which includes marrying and being sealed in their Temple. In LDS teaching, there are no single Gods. And since men cannot become Gods presently, Mormons refer to men as "Gods in embryo."

      Mormons often quote this vexatious phase, "As man is, God once was, as God is man may become" (coined by LDS Apostle and later  fifth president Lorenzo Snow), this LDS maxim sums up the teaching of exaltation. First Prophet and President of the LDS Church, Joseph Smith first annunciated this teaching:

Here then is eternal life- to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power (Joseph Fielding Smith ed, Teachings of The Prophet Joseph Smith, 346-47).

In the same sermon,1 Smith goes on to say:

When you climb up the ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principals of the Gospel- you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principals of exaltation (ibid., 348).

In his book: Doctrines of Salvation, under the subject: ALL EXALTED MEN BECOME GODS, tenth President and Prophet, Joseph Fielding Smith teaches:

To believe that Adam is a god should not be strange to any person who accepts the Bible. When Jesus was accused of blasphemy because he claimed to be the Son of God, he answered the Jews: "Is it not written in your law, I said Ye are gods? . . . Joseph Smith taught a plurality of gods 2 and that man by obeying the commandments of God and keeping the whole law will eventually reach the power and exaltation by which he also will become a god (97-98; emphasis added).

Teaching on exaltation, Twelfth President, Spencer W. Kimball says:

Brethren 225,000 of you are here tonight. I suppose 225, 000 of you may become gods. There seems to be plenty of space out there in the universe. And the Lord has proved that he knows how to do it. I think he could make, or probably have us help make, worlds for all of us, for every one of us 225,000 (The Ensign, Nov. 1975, 80; emphasis added).

In his book: A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, after quoting Doctrine and Covenants, 132:4-6, 15-17, 19, 212, LDS Apostle Le Grand Richards writes:

From this revelation, it will be seen that men can become Gods and enjoy a "fullness and a continuation of the seeds fore ever and ever," only by observing the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. . . . (313).

LDS General Authority and LDS Apostle, Bruce R. McConkie states:

Exaltation grows out of the eternal union of a man and his wife. Of those whose marriage endures in eternity, the Lord says, "Then shall they be gods" (D. & C. 132:20); that is, each of them, the man and the woman, will be a god.3 As such they will rule over their dominions forever (Mormon Doctrine, 613; cf. 257).

This is the basic tenet of Mormon doctrine. In fact, all those who do not make this elite status are "damned," in Mormon teaching.4 And, of course, Godhood is only available in the highest level of the celestial kingdom.

---

Biblical Teaching

        In Scripture, God has much to say concerning polytheism (many true Gods) and the false idea that  that men can become a God. Keep in mind, Mormons believe that God was once a man, hence, Mormons are taught that God is not the eternal God from everlasting to everlasting (cf. Ps. 90:2), for God had to become God

Isaiah 44:6, 8:

First, keep in mind that in the OT, the Mormons are taught that the "LORD" (Heb. Yahweh or, as the Mormons pronounce, "Jehovah") is the pre-incarnate Christ and "God" (Heb. Elohim) is the Father.

With that in mind, Isaiah 44:6, 8 reads:

44:6: Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

44:8: Fear ye not, neither be afraid; have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Note first that it is the LORD speaking--who the Mormons think is Jesus, not the Father, the Father is Elohim ("God"). So how is it that the Son (LORD) can say "beside me there is no "God" [Elohim, the Father]? Does He deny His Father's (Elohim) existence?

And how is it that the Son can affirm that "there is no God [Elohim]" and that He knows of "not any."? This passages in light of Mormon theology is quite problematic.   

Further, the LORD asks, "Is there a God beside me?" In LDS theology, there are many Gods, so, how is it that the LORD would ask, "Is there a God beside Me?"? Is not the LORD omniscient, knowing all things?

Isaiah 43:10:

"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" (Isa. 43:10).

Notice, God affirms: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. Also we read:

"for I am God, and there is none else" (Isa. 45:22; emphasis added).

      Mormons usually respond to this verse and others by asserting that either (a) the translation is corrupt or (b) God here, as in Isa. 43:10; and 44:6, 8 is speaking of false gods or idols. However, this line of reasoning is flawed.

      First, virtually every manuscript, and translation that contains Isaiah 43:10 and 44:6, 8 whether Hebrew or the Septuagint (LXX; i.e., the Gk. Translation of the OT, which Jesus and the apostles frequently used) essentiality reads the same. What is more, the oldest complete manuscript of Isaiah (extant) contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls also reads the same!: "before me there was no God [Heb. El]  formed, neither shall there be after me."

Secondly, in Isaiah 43:10 God is not saying: " No other false Gods exist but Me," for He is the true God. Hence, there are no other true Gods that exist but the one true God of Scripture, Creator of Heaven and earth (cf. Is. 44:24).

But the LORD [is] the true God, he [is] the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation. Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, [even] they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens (Jer. 10:10-11). 

Exaltation (i.e., man becoming a God) is an utterly pagan doctrine, which, by the way, did not originate with the Mormons but rather was quite pervasive among the pagans, centuries before Mormonism. Hence we find a clear and pointed refutation in the book of Isaiah: "BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, NEITHER SHALL THERE BE AFTER ME" (43:10; emphasis added).

You have been taught that the LORD alone is God – there is no other besides him (Deut. 4:35).

Notes

1,One of Smith's greatest sermons, Mormons tell us, called: The King Follett Discourse. Joseph Smith delivered this discourse before about twenty thousand LDS at the April conference of the church, 1844, being the funeral sermon of Elder King Follett. LDS writers and General Authorities, frequently quote portions of this sermon when teaching and discussing official LDS doctrine.

2, Doctrine and Covenants, 132:20 reads: "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."

3, Not implying that women would be the man's equal (according to LDS theology), however, they teach that women will be "queens" (goddesses) to their King (their husband) in full submission. Hence, they will not be the head God, that position is only relegated for men. As one LDS writer put it: "women will be eternal birth-machines."

4, Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine,  669.

[Godzilla]

I think C.S. Lewis said it better than any of us can.

And CS Lewis would strongly disagree with the mormon doctrine of Exaltation. Standard mormon misrepresentation.

Not so fast. The “sleight of mind” performed by the Mormons comes nowhere close even to the “sleight of hand” of a Las Vegas lounge stage magician. C. S. Lewis is no crypto-Mormon. Not only do his works not support the Mormon theology of deification, in fact they expressly contradict it. Each of the Lewis citations have been taken out of their contexts and twisted. In addition, frequently in his writings about humanity’s eternal destiny, he carefully clarifies the eternal and impassible gulf between the only Creator and His creatures, including humans.

In the first quote, Lewis’s context comes in a chapter called “Counting the Cost,” and describes the process of sanctification that God begins at the moment one becomes a Christian and will continue until we are reunited after death and the judgment with our resurrected bodies, when we will be “perfect,” that is, “complete,” as creatures. In fact, the sentence immediately preceding the Mormons’ favorite is “He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command.”18 In the same small volume he explains,

What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God in the sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they are not things of the same kind. They are more like statues or pictures of God.19

In The Weight of Glory Lewis explains what he means by the perfection that God will work in us as we are sanctified, resurrected, and glorified. He distinguishes between God, the only Creator, and humans, even glorified, the created. In the beginning of the essay he explains,

The promises of Scripture may very roughly be reduced to five heads. It is promises, firstly, that we shall be with Christ; secondly, that we shall be like Him; thirdly . . . that we shall have “glory”; fourthly, that we shall, in some sense, be fed or feasted or entertained; and finally, that we shall have some sort of official position in the universe—ruling cities, judging angels, being pillars of God’s temple.20 Lewis’s positive assertions that we can never be deified in the Mormon sense come in a variety of forms. In his popular The Problem of Pain he notes,

For we are only creatures; our role must always be that of patient to agent, female to male, mirror to light, echo to voice. Our highest activity must be response, not initiative. To experience the love of God in a true, and not an illusory form, is therefore to experience it as our surrender to His demand, our conformity to His desire.21

Lewis notes the infinite chasm between Creator and creature when he describes, in the same book, the fall of humanity as “This act of self-will on the part of the creature, which constitutes an utter falseness to its true creaturely position, is the only sin that can be conceived as the Fall.”22 Lewis concludes The Problem of Pain with the glorious comparison:

As our Earth is to all the stars, so doubtless are we men and our concerns to all creation; as all the stars are to space itself, so are all creatures, all thrones and powers and mightiest of the created gods, to the abyss of the self-existing Being, who is to us Father and Redeemer and indwelling Comforter, but of whom no man nor angel can say nor conceive what He is in and for Himself, or what is the work that he “maketh from the beginning to the end.” For they are all derived and unsubstantial things. Their vision fails them and they cover their eyes from the intolerable light of utter actuality, which was and is and shall be, which never could have been otherwise, which has no opposite.23

Perhaps nowhere is Lewis’s consciousness of the utter difference between God and those made in His image greater than in his compelling science fiction trilogy, the Space Trilogy, consisting of three books, Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength.24 Lewis draws the reader into a world of time and space travel, alternate worlds, evil and technological destruction and good and selfless sacrifice. It is the story of all stories, the redemption story that began in Eden and, for this series, ends in post-World War II England: God has created us for glory. We have abandoned Him in favor of our own evil desires. He has done everything to redeem us to Himself. Will we respond in faith believing, inheriting the glory prepared for us? Or will we respond with continued self-worship and absorption, damned by our own idolatry to worship ourselves, gods beneath our own dignity? The first way is God’s way. The second—whether cloaked in pantheism, polytheism, the henotheism of Mormon theology, or the masterful guise of materialistic humanism—is not.

Endnotes: 1. C. S. Lewis, Beyond Personality (London: The Centenary Press, 1945), 48. Also contained in Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan Company, 1952), 174-175.
2. Lewis is misused by other individuals, religious movements, and organizations as well; and Mormons also attempt to defend their deification theology in other ways, such as comparing it to the nonheretical Eastern Orthodox theology of “theosis,” but the focus of this brief article is restricted to the Mormon use of Lewis’s writings for this purpose. For more information on these issues, see Richard and Joan Ostling’s Mormon America: The Power and the Promise (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1999), especially pages 307-314; “Grace and the Divinization of Humanity” at http://mysticalrose.tripod.com/grace3.html; and Kurt Van Gorden’s “Can Man Progress to Godhood?” at www.answers.org/Theology/Man_become_God.html.
3. Ted Olsen, “C. S. Lewis,” Christian History, no. 65 (spring 2000) in “The Ten Most Influential Christians of the Twentieth Century.”
4. Lewis died November 23, 1963, the same date as John F. Kennedy and Aldous Huxley.
5. Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1997).
6. In an article contributed by Robinson to editor Daniel H. Ludlow’s Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 5 vols. (New York: Macmillan Press, 1992).
7. Conference brochure, n.p., n.d.
8. John W. Kennedy, “Southern Baptists Take Up the Mormon Challenge” Christianity Today, 15 June 1998, 30.
9. Jay Copp, “Readers Cross Religious Lines for C. S. Lewis,” Christian Science Monitor, 23 May 1999, 19.
10. See www.signaturebooksinc.com/stranger.htm.
11. Despite its goals and the credentials of its contributors, there is no way to historically, evidentially, biblically, philosophically, or scientifically verify the fiction of Mormon history and theology. This, however, is not the forum for a critique of FARMS.
12. See www/farmsresearch.com/ free/qanda/basicissuesch5.html.
13. C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1949), 14-15.
14. For information see www.jersey.net/~inkwell/mormonet.htm.
15. Quoted from Richard and Joan Ostling, Mormon America: The Power and the Promise (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1999), 308. 16. Ibid., 307.
17. Ibid., 307-308.
18. Lewis, Beyond Personality, 48.
19. Ibid., 12-13.
20. Lewis, The Weight of Glory, 7.
21. C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1962), 51. 22. Ibid., 80. 23. Ibid., 153-154. 24. Available in various editions, including 1996 edition from Simon and Schuster.

[ejonesie22]

You haters always do this, put up facts and LDS doctrine to prove your point.

What LDS doctrine says doesn’t matter, it doesn’t have to be accurate or even real, it is how you “feel” that counts...

See, we always "win"...

[ejonesie22]

When one of your LDS buddies passes into the next dispensation or whatever, makes a planet, a few nice ferns and some kittens all from scratch, give us a call...

[NoRedTape]

"Christianity says we bring nothing to the table. It is grace alone in Christ alone that saves us. Our works are fithly rags."
--Actually, mormons bring a lot to the table. However, their charade to call themselves Christian will always keep them sadly apart; ensconsed in a cult which was created by a con man. Joe Smith said that Christianity had vanished and that his 'church' was the way.

Joe was dead wrong.

You can read all the truths on mormonism right HERE by hundreds of former mormon folk.

"Mormonism teaches we do all we can and Chist fills in the gaps."
--That's not all they teach. The teach all this, too................

How much do you have to pay for such erroneous info?

[The_Reader_David]

First to delacoert, I apologize for characterizing the article as ‘your critique’. I would note, however, that when religiously controversial pieces are posted on FR without a critical comment by the poster they usually represent a position the poster agrees with.

Now, as to a fuller critique of Mormonism: the fundamental defect lies in the Mormons’ voiding of the transcendence of God. The anthroposis of the Father leaves Mormonism, in fact not with many Gods, but with no God. There is no point in becoming, being conformed to, being exalted to be like, or whatever, a ‘God’ who is nothing more than a super-powerful man. Such a ‘God’ would rightly earn the scorn Dawkins and his ilk direct toward any notion of God. Were I convinced that God was such a ‘God’ as Mormonism describes, I should be a Zen Buddhist rather than a Christian.

Fortunately, God is not as the Mormons hold, but is in truth the All-Holy Trinity who in the Incarnation, Life, Passion, Death, Resurrection, Ascension and Coming-Again of the Son and Word has saved us.

The point of theosis is not to gain power as seems to be the point of Mormon ‘exaltation’, but to be conformed to He Who Is, the transcendent ground-of-all-being, the All-Holy Trinity, through participation in His Uncreated Energies and Life, thereby restoring the image and completing the likeness to God with which we were created and from which we fell. This, of course, can only be accomplished by grace in Christ Jesus, and our cooperation with that grace. But when accomplished as we have seen in the saints, leaves human beings in a state that the Fathers of the Church were bold enough to characterize as being gods due to the likeness to the One-Existing God.

If you have any quarrel, take it up with St. Athanasius the Great and the other Fathers who used this turn of phrase, not with me who merely try to follow the tradition they bequeathed to us.

[Godzilla]

The point of theosis is not to gain power as seems to be the point of Mormon ‘exaltation’, but to be conformed to He Who Is, the transcendent ground-of-all-being, the All-Holy Trinity, through participation in His Uncreated Energies and Life, thereby restoring the image and completing the likeness to God with which we were created and from which we fell.

Thank you for your clarification - it is as I expected. In my realm we refer to this as sanctification. Either way, it appears we agree that mormons attempt to appropriate and twist this concept to their own ends.

[dotan]

As long as we all agree that Romney should never hold higher office again, and certainly not our highest office, then we are all of one mind IMHO, regardless of creed or favorite sports team.

Go Mitt! And by go I mean go away! This is your cue to add your own anti-Romney slogan.

[delacoert]

The point of theosis is not to gain power as seems to be the point of Mormon ‘exaltation’, but to be conformed to He Who Is...

Well put and beautifully written. I have no quarrel with Athanasius or you.

[greyfoxx39]

ping

[colorcountry]

Thank you for the wonderful clarification concerning the thoughts of St. Athanasius.

Mormonism twists it, just as it does the writings of C.S. Lewis, in order to justify the aberrant belief that they will become exalted beings - gods of worlds of their own creation.

[delacoert]

I would note, however, that when religiously controversial pieces are posted on FR without a critical comment by the poster they usually represent a position the poster agrees with.

Perhaps. However, there are some who post in the Religion Forum letting Mormon doctrine comment on itself.

It is a wonder to behold how quickly Mormons jump to the conclusion that their own doctrine and scripture is embarassingly critical of itself.

[reaganaut]

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

How can we become perfect like God, unless we become Gods ourselves?

- - - -
You are misinterpreting the Greek, and the full context. In Greek, the word used here for “perfect” is telelos. It is an architectural term meaning complete, finished or whole. Not perfect like we think of it. We become complete through faith in Jesus Christ (justification).

Secondly, in the context of the verse, Jesus is discussing the letter of the law (rules) versus the spirit of the law (love). He is commanding his followers to be complete in love.

[reaganaut]

Our Lord cited the Psalmist writing in the Spirit, “I have said ye are gods”, commenting “and the Scripture cannot be annulled”.

- - - - -
He was referring to a verse in the Psalm where judges (who decided life and death) were called “gods”. He was not talking about theosis.

The early church fathers references also do not equate with the LDS doctrine of theosis.

LDS doctrine of theosis is much more along the lines of Roman theosis (apotheosis of the Caesars).

In reality it is more like “Apocolocyntosis” Seneca wrote about.

[Colofornian]

How can we become perfect like God, unless we become Gods ourselves?

(So if your dog starts to obey perfectly, he/she becomes human???)

God the Father and Jesus are separate individuals. Who is the God of Jesus?

And in your John citation, you left out John 17:5, 22: And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began...I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one

Why do you stress the division of God more than His Unity -- when Jesus does the opposite?

Shared glory.

[delacoert]

And?

Point taken.

I accept the truth of the process of theosis as catholic. It was foolish to limit its orthodoxy.

[ejonesie22]

Actually I doubt you will find any quarrel for indeed that is exactly they way it should be. We strive to be like him, to return to his image and our home with him.

That we can become his equal is something else entirely.

[Colofornian]

C.S. Lewis...The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas.

First of all, you don't have to quote C.S. Lewis to find "be ye perfect" (it wasn't original w/him...As Alan2 has already posted -- according to a certain "Matt" a certain "Jesus" said we were to be perfect.)

Secondly, if you and Alan2 are equating "perfection" with godhood, then you're BOTH resurrecting Brigham Young's Adam-god theory, eh? (only now you're adding Eve, too?)

Why do I say this? Yes or no (I expect an answer): Was Adam & Eve at one time morally perfect beings? (If you answer "no" then you slander their creator; If you answer "yes" then you are equating perfection with natural godhood and you are claiming that Adam, Eve, and every angel either were or are gods).

(If you answer "no" to Adam & Eve both being gods, then you need to promise to stop using this nonsense of Matt. 5:48 and the similar Book of Mormon passage as some sort of prooftext that you ARE or WILL BE a god!)

From your Lewis quote: "He is going to make us into creatures..."

Thirdly, Lewis clearly says we will remain creatures ("He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command."--not creators of our own world or our own universe).

Fourthly, Lewis isn't coming up with any new reference about "gods"...he clearly says he is citing the Bible and it's obvious He's only referencing Ps. 82 & John 10 (John 10 cites Ps. 82). The "god"-judges in Ps. 82 are "unjust"--not the sort of divines I'd care to be under. You?

(The_Reader-David -- perhaps you can inform us what kind of "gods" are they in Ps. 82 -- and cited by Jesus in John 10 -- who are "unjust" and who will die like men?)

Fifthly, Lewis writes quite a bit about the transformation process mortals undergo in "Mere Christianity" (more on that in a moment). Your reference, tho, clearly says: "we WERE gods" (not WILL BE gods)...so whatever form of godhood the Bible assigns to (some) men, it's not future-tense. [This is always the big error of Mormonism: It can never cite any Book of Mormon or Biblical passage about becoming gods, future-tense].

To continue your Lewis citation: He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness.

Lewis, in The Weight of Glory, further described what he meant above: "There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations--these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit--immortal horrors or everlasting splendours...Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbor is the holiest object presented to your senses. If he is your Christian neighbour, he is holy in almost the same way, for in him also Christ...the glorifier and the glorified, Glory Himself, is truly hidden."

So, (a), immortality and the dazzling nature of reflecting God's image perfectly (as re-created beings in Christ) still does not equate to supernatural inherent godhood.

(b) that "image" we shine forth is as Lewis said "the glorifier and the glorified, Glory Himself" tucked away in us. Lewis makes this clear in Mere Christianity in chapter 29: "And now we begin to see what it is that the New Testament is always talking about. It talks about Christians `being born again'; it talks about them 'putting on Christ'; about Christ 'being formed in us'; about our coming to 'have the mind of Christ'."

Simply put: Jesus lives through His body. At one time it was simply a 33-year-old body of flesh. Now that body has multiplied so that it encompasses millions of people. We the church are temples of Christ (as Lewis said citing Scripture He is "formed in us"), temples of the Holy Spirit. Does this very reflection of divinity in us mean we are divine? Read Lewis more carefully in chapter 29 (& beginning of chapter 30). I quote from Lewis:

"It is a living Man, still as much a man as you, and still as much God as He was when He created the world, really coming and interfering with your very self; killing the old natural self in you and replacing it with the kind of self He has. At first, only for moments. Then for longer periods. Finally, if all goes well, turning you permanently into a different sort of thing; into a new little Christ, a being which, in its own small way, has the same kind of life as God; which shares in His power, joy, knowledge and eternity. And soon we make two other discoveries. I have been talking as if it were we who did everything. In reality, of course, it is God who does everything. We, at most, allow it to be done to us. In a sense you might even say it is God who does the pretending. The Three-Personal God, so to speak, sees before Him in fact a self-centred, greedy, grumbling, rebellious human animal. But He says `Let us pretend that this is not a mere creature, but our Son. It is like Christ in so far as it is a Man, for He became Man. Let us pretend that it is also like Him in Spirit. Let us treat it as if it were what in fact it is not. Let us pretend in order to make the pretence into a reality.' God looks at you as if you were a little Christ: Christ stands beside you to turn you into one. I daresay this idea of a divine make-believe sounds rather strange at first...In the previous chapter we were considering the Christian idea of 'putting on Christ,' or first 'dressing up' as a son of God in order that you may finally become a real son."

So, yes, the very life of God flows in us and through us; as the temple of God, our body shares space with Him. But we are not divine by nature. Secondly, to sum up Lewis, God treats us (Lewis uses the word "make-believe") as if we were not simply the adopted sons Paul talks about in Romans & elsewhere; we become transformed beings who cannot receive any credit for any of this transformation. That is exactly opposite the Book of Mormon, which says that grace kicks in "only after all you can do."

Finally, Rip, if you agree with Lewis' Mere Christianity, then why don't give us all rave reviews of his chapter 24 and the "Three-Personal God" he writes about there?

[reaganaut]

Wow. Taking CS Lewis out of context and using eisegesis to boot. Standard LDS SOP.

CS Lewis did not support LDS doctrine.

Context is our friend.

[reaganaut]

Thanks ‘zilla. I knew I had read it somewhere.

This time I am adding it to my file.

[reaganaut]

When one of your LDS buddies passes into the next dispensation or whatever, makes a planet, a few nice ferns and some kittens all from scratch, give us a call...

- - - - -
The thing is, according to Mormon theology GOD CANNOT CREATE matter (or destroy it). All He can do is “organize” it.

The completely reject Creation ex-nihilo.