Posted on 11/10/2007 7:22:46 AM PST by Gamecock
God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible,I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in formlike yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another.[1]
There are few passages in all of LDS literature more often cited, quoted, and discussed, than this one. This, and the two paragraphs that follow, rank right next to the First Vision in their impact upon LDS theology to this very day. The first phrase, God himself was once as we are now, has been so often repeated that it has become a given in LDS teaching. This, and the saying of Lorenzo Snow that we will examine later, “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become,” have attained a status in Mormon theology that ranks them as carrying as much authority as any other statement about God.
God himself was once as we are now. The full impact of this statement must be understood. Here we have a man who is claiming to stand as a prophet of God, as a Christian prophet, who is proclaiming that God once existed in a corporeal, human state. God was once a man like us. A number of things must then be true. First, God has not eternally been God. From this we develop the idea of exaltation, a process that even God Himself has undergone. Secondly, if God has not eternally been God, then obviously there must have been a God or gods before Him (unless one embraces the idea that the universe sprang into existence without divine assistance).[2]
“God is an exalted man.” From this assertion we see the coming together of the thought process we observed in the earlier sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, that being the exaltation of man to a high status. God and man are the same species, the same kind of being, differing in level of exaltation. We are not yet exalted; God has undergone this process, and this is why He differs from us. But, since He was once where we are, obviously the door is opened for us to undergo the same process and hence, someday, become a God as He is.
God has a physical body, for He is an exalted man, just as the 1838 edition of the First Vision had asserted. This physical body is not just an unnecessary addition or accessory. It is definitional of God Himself, just as our body is vital to what it means to be a human.
These statements would have been enough, but Joseph Smith was just warming up. He leaves us with no room for misunderstanding his intent.
In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. 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; and I will show it from the Bible.[3]
When speaking of the character of God, Smith insists that God came to be God. This continues the idea that God was once something other than what He is today. Smith then strikes directly at the heart of Christian orthodoxy–at a belief held by Christians from the very beginning–in saying that he will refute the idea that God has been God from all eternity (Psalm 90:2). Obviously, then, it is perfectly permissible to understand Smith as positively saying that God has not eternally been God.[4] How else could it be? The drive to make it possible for man to become exalted must of necessity result in this kind of assertion about God Himself. The God of Christian orthodoxy, because He is eternal, unchanging, and exhaustive of every category of perfection, power, and being, simply leaves no room for the kind of future Smith envisioned for man. Hence, the God of Christian orthodoxy had to be refuted.
We cannot lightly pass over Smith’s assertion that it is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know…that he was once a man like us. I have often heard LDS say that we shouldn’t discuss such deep issues as exaltation to godhood, yet Smith says it is the first principle of the Gospel. It is clear that Joseph Smith did not view this as an optional belief at this point in his life and teaching. This is not just a side-issue upon which we may or may not agree with him. This is doctrine, pure and simple, and it is not something upon which a person can disagree and remain a follower of the Prophet.
Further, we cannot miss the emphasis upon the similarity of the pre-exaltation existence of God with our own current earthly lot. Smith insists that God’s time as a man is parallel to the life of Christ here upon earth. Obviously, then, Smith means what he says: God was a man like we are men, human beings, going through the same experiences of life that we are.[5] Some modern LDS are uncomfortable with the clarity and force of such statements. Some wish to pull the veil back across the Prophet’s teachings so as to not have to defend such doctrine. But this is his teaching, without question.
———————————————
[1] Ibid., p. 345. Italics in the printed edition.
[2] Many Christian philosophers have pointed out the obvious flaw in such a concept: if every God was once a man, then, what about the first God? If the law is inviolable, did not this God have to be a man before becoming a God? Some LDS have said that there was never a first, but that the regression is eternal. But such an argument is irrational on many grounds. The simplest means of demonstrating this is to point out that the number of exalted beings is increasing as time passes. If the number increases with the passing of time, and cannot then decrease (Gods don’t cease to be Gods, do they?), then as we go back in time the number decreases. Eventually, one must come to the first God who began the process. That this idea has been found in LDS writings is fairly simple to document. Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt noted in his book, The Seer, p. 132 (from September of 1853):
We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten by a still more ancient Father and so on, from generation to generation, from one heavenly world to another still more ancient, until our minds are wearied and lost in the multiplicity of generations and successive worlds, and as a last resort, we wonder in our minds, how far back the genealogy extends, and how the first world was formed, and the first father was begotten. But why does man seek for a first, when revelation informs him that Gods works are without beginning? Do you still seek for a first link where the chain is endless? Can you conceive of a first year in endless duration? . . . The Fulness of Truth, dwelling in an endless succession of past generations, would produce an endless succession of personal Gods, each possessing equal wisdom, power, and glory with all the rest. In worshipping any one of these Gods we worship the whole, and in worshipping the whole, we still worship but one God; for it is the same God who dwells in them all; the personages are only His different dwelling places.
It seems to me that Pratt here goes well into the realm of speculation, though again, the Mormon is left to deal with the difficulty of an Apostle teaching on religious truth and yet, in so doing, not providing authoritative counsel and doctrine.
[3] Ibid., pp. 345-346. Italics in printed edition.
[4] Hence, when one sees LDS writers referring to God as eternal, they are normally referring to God’s existence en toto, that is, on the same level as being able to say, as Mormons do, that man is eternal as well.
[5] K. Codell Carter, writing on the subject Godhood in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1992), Latter-day Saints believe that God achieved his exalted rank by progressing much as man must progress and that God is a perfected and exalted man. He then cites from the King Follett Discourse as evidence of this belief.
How many wives you got, by the way?
None!
LOL
How many wives might you had?
How many women did you sleep with?
This would naturally lead to the question of whether the Holy Ghost's exaltation is complete?
Is the Holy Ghost waiting for his body? Will He get one someday and be completely exalted?
Like I said it is you who wants to know so go to the source!:)
His tithe is also buying assets....that the avg. mormon has no idea about.
“There are few passages in all of LDS literature more often cited, quoted, and discussed, than this one.”
He forgot to add the qualifier ‘by critics of Mormons’ The King Follet Discussion is not part of our cannon, the idea contained in the quoted part is not church doctrine, and the KFD is rarely mentioned in Mormon meetings.
“This, and the two paragraphs that follow, rank right next to the First Vision in their impact upon LDS theology to this very day.”
That claim is absurd. A non-canonical person opinion (that is hardly even mentioned most of the time) ranking up there with the First Vision? Give me a break.
“The first phrase, God himself was once as we are now, has been so often repeated that it has become a given in LDS teaching.”
If by God you mean Christ, yes. It is our doctrine that Christ was as man is. I though orthodox Christians taught that as well, calling Christ ‘fully man’. With their views of the trinity, saying ‘As man is, God once was’ should be quite acceptable to orthodox Christians.
“This, and the saying of Lorenzo Snow that we will examine later, “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become,” have attained a status in Mormon theology that ranks them as carrying as much authority as any other statement about God.”
As man is God once was, the NT talks specifically about that. Christ walked the earth as a man. The idea that men can (through grace) become deified was part of original Christianity:
Saint Irenaeus
- “Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods?
- How then will any be a god, if he has not first been made a man?
- Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, of his boundless love, became what we are that he might make us what he himself is.”
(the above quotes taken from: Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers: A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius (London: Oxford University Press, 1956)
Clement of Alexandria
- “Yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.”
Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks, 1.[
and
- “if one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God. . . . His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes a god, since God wills it.”
Clement of Alexandria, Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 3.1 see also Clement, Stromateis, 23
Justin Martyr
- “[in the beginning men] were made like God, free from suffering and death,” and that they are thus “deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest”
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 124.
Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria
- “The Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods. . . . Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life.”
Athanasius, Against the Arians, 1.39, 3.39.
and
- “He became man that we might be made divine.”
Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 54.
Augustine of Hippo
- “But he himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. ‘For he has given them power to become the sons of God’ [John 1:12]. If then we have been made sons of god, we have also been made gods.”
Augustine, On the Psalms, 50:2.
Then you have more modern theologians teaching the same idea and acknowledging deification was part of early Christianity...
C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory
“It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship.”
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
“The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him-for we can prevent Him, if we choose-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. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said”
Westminister Dictionary of Christian Theology:
Deification (Greek Theosis) is for orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, according to the Bible, is ‘made in the image and likeness of God’...it is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become God by grace. This doctrine is based on many passages of both O.T. and N.T. (Psalms 82: (81) .6; 2 Peter 1:4), and it is essentially the teaching both of St. Paul, though he tends to use the language of filial adoption (Romans 8:9-17, Galatians 4:5-7) and the fourth gospel (John 17:21-23).
William R. Inge, Archbishop of Canterbury:
“God became man, that we might become God” was a commonplace of doctrinal theology at least until the time of Augustine, and that “deification holds a very large place in the writings of the fathers...We find it in Irenaeus as well as in Clement, in Athanasius as well in Gregory of Nysee. St. Augustine was no more afraid of deificari in Latin than Origen of apotheosis in Greek...To modern ears the word deification sounds not only strange but arrogant and shocking.
( for more info including Biblical support for theosis, see http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Deification_of_man)
“God was once a man like us. A number of things must then be true. First, God has not eternally been God.”
Christ was in the beginning with the Father, Christ is from everlasting to everlasting (D&C 61:1). He was Jehovah in the OT, the mortal Christ in the NT. At no time did he lose his godhood even when he walked the earth as a mortal man.
“Secondly, if God has not eternally been God, then obviously there must have been a God or gods before Him (unless one embraces the idea that the universe sprang into existence without divine assistance).”
Again the author ignores that in LDS theology, Christ walked as a mortal in the universe that he himself created before he took on mortal flesh.
“When speaking of the character of God, Smith insists that God came to be God. This continues the idea that God was once something other than what He is today”
Again, in Christ we see an example of progression by a divine personage:
Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
So, there was a time where Christ did not have all wisdom, else how could he increase in wisdom. Likewise there was a time where he did not have God’s complete favor. Yet he had not lost his godhood.
“Smith then strikes directly at the heart of Christian orthodoxy–at a belief held by Christians from the very beginning–in saying that he will refute the idea that God has been God from all eternity”
It sounds to me as though he disagrees with the meaning that orthodox Christians attach to ‘from everlasting to everlasting’. LDS scriptures also repeatedly affirm God to be from everlasting to everlasting. The phase can be seen as indicating existence from the begging to the end, but nothing about the phrase requires that existence to be static as so many suppose. In fact with Christ being from everlasting to everlasting, and Christ clearly progressing in various ways in his mortal life, it’s perfectly reasonable to say that being from everlasting to everlasting isn’t a static existence.
“This is doctrine, pure and simple, and it is not something upon which a person can disagree and remain a follower of the Prophet.”
Again the author imposes on the reader his personal opinion of what Mormon doctrine is, contrary to the facts. The KDF is not doctrine, and it doesn’t matter what leader says something or how emphatically they say it, or even how popular an idea is among members of the church, it is not doctrine unless it is formally accepted by the church as doctrine.
There are times that prophets speak on behalf of the Lord, and times they speak of themselves and the KDF is an example of the latter type. The KFD never went through that process to be accepted as doctrine, and members are free to disagree with it.
“Smith insists that God’s time as a man is parallel to the life of Christ here upon earth. Obviously, then, Smith means what he says: God was a man like we are men, human beings, going through the same experiences of life that we are.”
Actually, it seem Smith meant that God was a man like Christ was a man. Smith is taking a very literal view of John 5:19 (The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.)
“The simplest means of demonstrating this is to point out that the number of exalted beings is increasing as time passes.”
Ah, but projecting the limits of time onto the eternities is invalid in our theology. Time is something we are subject to, but not God. Eternity is not some never-ending length of time but an existence outside of time altogether. Because the eternities are outside of time, there is no ‘going back in time’ in the eternities. Without time concepts like ‘first’ also fall by the wayside as well.
“Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt noted in his book, The Seer”
A source the church (and Orson Pratt) have repudiated as being out of line with the doctrines of the church. That the author would use it shows a low level of scholarship.
“If I understand the gospel correctly, this it self is in error. It presupposes that God is surrounded by a veil. Now maybe there is more then one veil spoken of in the Bible, but the only veil I know of is the one that was torn in half by God himself when he finally gave up his life at the cross. Would someone confirm for me or correct me if I’m wrong in this matter.”
We believe the spirits of all men existed with God in the beginning, but at our birth the memory of all that came before is denied to us. We talk metaphorically of a ‘veil of forgetfulness’ as the barrier preventing our remembering that time before our birth and that is the veil he was referring to.
“And then there’s the matter of God being omnipresent everywhere”
We don’t believe God to be omnipresent. His power is, but not his person. We do believe he is all powerful and all knowing, so there is no need for him to be omnipresent even.
I think we should all maintain some civility here.
I don’t believe in the Book of Mormon and find theological flaws with it. However, at the end of the day, you really have to judge a group by their actions. When Muslims cry that they are a religion of peace, we refute that by point to the history of violence.
Despite whatever flaws that may been seen in Mormon theology, they have consistently demonstrated to be moral, kind, generous, and very nice people.
And I find it strange that folks who are looking for a political discussion, infer that their church is the only one that...
" teaches hard work, independence and service to your fellow man ".
17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself adelivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I bsaw two cPersonages, whose brightness and dglory defy all description, estanding above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My fBeloved gSon. Hear Him!18 My object in going to ainquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those bprofessors were all ccorrupt; that: “they ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the gpower thereof.”20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself alying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, bmother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.”
Sorry, Buster; but you KNOW that we consider ANYTHING that is not POSITIVE about our organization is considered to be an ATTACK!
--MormonDude(on the defense!)
You will be assimilated!
Well just wait, for quite a lot of these will get posted in this thread.
SOMEone is interested in SEX today!
And, there will be a lot of "moral, kind, generous, and very nice people" wishing that someone could dip the tip of there finger in water and give it to them.
I'm not denying that they are moral, kind, etc. But they are not Christians.
Let it be known this is your opinion Gamecock, and that the Lord Jesus Christ knows who is of his fold!
It's not just my opinion, but also that of one of your prophets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.