CWK: Becoming a god: deification in Mormonism and Orthodox theosis

[huckelberry]

And this next quotes are critical....


HOW HE BECAME GOD

Yet, if we accept the great law of eternal progression, we must accept the fact that there was a time when Deity was much less powerful than He is today. Then how did He become glorified and exalted and attain His present status of Godhood? In the first place, aeons ago God undoubtedly took advantage of every opportunity to learn the laws of truth and as He became acquainted with each new verity He righteously obeyed it. From day to day He exerted His will vigorously, and as a result became thoroughly acquainted with the forces lying about Him. As he gained more knowledge through persistent effort and continuous industry, as well as through absolute obedience, His understanding of the universal laws continued to become more complete. Thus He grew in experience and continued to grow until He attained the status of Godhood. In other words, He became God by absolute obedience to all the eternal laws of the Gospel—by conforming His actions to all truth, and thereby became the author of eternal truth. Therefore, the road that the Eternal Father followed to Godhood was one of living at all times a dynamic, industrious, and completely righteous life. There is no other way to exaltation.

How MEN MAY BECOME GODS

Thus all men who ascend to the glorious status of Godhood can do so only by one method—by obedience to all the principles and ordinances of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Fundamental in the process of obedience to truth is knowledge. We must first learn true principles before we are capable of intelligent obedience. The word of the Lord came to the latter-day Prophet as follows: "Behold, ye are little children and ye cannot bear all things now; ye must grow in grace and in the knowledge of truth." 1 Also, "It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance." 2 And again the Lord declared, "Men are saved no faster than they gain knowledge." The Prophet Joseph described the process of going on toward Godhood as follows: When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. 3 No prophet of record gave more complete and forceful explanations of the doctrine that men may become Gods than did the American Prophet, and, furthermore, he definitely pointed the course which men must follow. A small portion of his teachings is as follows: 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 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. . . . They shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? "Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself." So that Jesus treads in the tracks of his Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all of his children. 4 Thus we do not become Godlike in this world, nor Gods in the world to come, through any miraculous or sudden gift, but only through the slow process of natural growth brought about as a result of righteous living. Some people may think that when they die they will instantaneously get ridof all their bad habits and become purified. Such is not the case. We can become purified in this world, and the same holds true in the next life, only through repentance; that is, overcoming our faults and sins and replacing them with virtues. Charles W. Penrose sustains these thoughts in the following words: "Men become like God not by some supernatural or sudden change, either in this world or another, but by the natural development of the divinity within. Time, circumstances, and the necessary intelligence are all that are required."

Hunter, Milton R.. Gospel Through the Ages . Deseret Book Company. Kindle Edition.


This is just a start, there is much more.

Markk thanks for posting this reference summary. I remember being taught these ideas. This is a pretty complete statement in a way though a bit of a slog to wade through. Physics Guy might find it a useful reference.

On the one hand it sounds like absurd cosmology to me but it is a reminder that people should make real effort to improve and learn and not expect to be automatically fixed.

[Markk]

Well, given I was born and raised in the church 5th and 6th polygamous pioneer stock. Understanding LDS theology I couldn't disagree with you more. Exposing truths and putting them out there for folks to make discissions on in not polemical to me. Their journey out of Mormonism was hardly abrupt. It was a step by step journey out uncovering truth after truth that was hidden or forgotten.

They didn’t just bring facts to light. That is the good side of what they did, sure. Instead, they sought to frame things in a prejudiced light. I should know since they approached me about writing on Joseph Smith and magic. Their negative and biased views on the topic were very clear. I did not accept the invitation.

Again...I couldn't disagree more. What did they frame in a prejudicial light and the percentages of doing so would be my question. They wrote so much.

[Markk]

And this next quotes are critical....


HOW HE BECAME GOD

Yet, if we accept the great law of eternal progression, we must accept the fact that there was a time when Deity was much less powerful than He is today. Then how did He become glorified and exalted and attain His present status of Godhood? In the first place, aeons ago God undoubtedly took advantage of every opportunity to learn the laws of truth and as He became acquainted with each new verity He righteously obeyed it. From day to day He exerted His will vigorously, and as a result became thoroughly acquainted with the forces lying about Him. As he gained more knowledge through persistent effort and continuous industry, as well as through absolute obedience, His understanding of the universal laws continued to become more complete. Thus He grew in experience and continued to grow until He attained the status of Godhood. In other words, He became God by absolute obedience to all the eternal laws of the Gospel—by conforming His actions to all truth, and thereby became the author of eternal truth. Therefore, the road that the Eternal Father followed to Godhood was one of living at all times a dynamic, industrious, and completely righteous life. There is no other way to exaltation.

How MEN MAY BECOME GODS

Thus all men who ascend to the glorious status of Godhood can do so only by one method—by obedience to all the principles and ordinances of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Fundamental in the process of obedience to truth is knowledge. We must first learn true principles before we are capable of intelligent obedience. The word of the Lord came to the latter-day Prophet as follows: "Behold, ye are little children and ye cannot bear all things now; ye must grow in grace and in the knowledge of truth." 1 Also, "It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance." 2 And again the Lord declared, "Men are saved no faster than they gain knowledge." The Prophet Joseph described the process of going on toward Godhood as follows: When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. 3 No prophet of record gave more complete and forceful explanations of the doctrine that men may become Gods than did the American Prophet, and, furthermore, he definitely pointed the course which men must follow. A small portion of his teachings is as follows: 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 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. . . . They shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? "Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself." So that Jesus treads in the tracks of his Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all of his children. 4 Thus we do not become Godlike in this world, nor Gods in the world to come, through any miraculous or sudden gift, but only through the slow process of natural growth brought about as a result of righteous living. Some people may think that when they die they will instantaneously get ridof all their bad habits and become purified. Such is not the case. We can become purified in this world, and the same holds true in the next life, only through repentance; that is, overcoming our faults and sins and replacing them with virtues. Charles W. Penrose sustains these thoughts in the following words: "Men become like God not by some supernatural or sudden change, either in this world or another, but by the natural development of the divinity within. Time, circumstances, and the necessary intelligence are all that are required."

Hunter, Milton R.. Gospel Through the Ages . Deseret Book Company. Kindle Edition.


This is just a start, there is much more.

Markk thanks for posting this reference summary. I remember being taught these ideas. This is a pretty complete statement in a way though a bit of a slog to wade through. Physics Guy might find it a useful reference.

On the one hand it sounds like absurd cosmology to me but it is a reminder that people should make real effort to improve and learn and not expect to be automatically fixed.

In a nut shell if you really think about it, this is the third article of faith explained. The church today, as compared to teachings like this; the members have no real idea what the brethren actually taught and believed.


2.We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.


3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

The second AoF being the unconditional or universal salvation while the third being the personal or conditional salvation.

Taking this and applying it to section 132 and the N&ELC really confuses the issue. If this, as Hunter wrote, is the only way to exaltation (see bold above), then Joseph's offering exaltation to his prospective brides, and their families show from a LDS perspective that he was either using the N&ELC as tool or mustache, or the great law of eternal progression i.e. plan of salvation in not really a eternal principle, but some sort of kind of plan that has back doors, I guess. What does one do with the second anointing here also?

I guess that the only answer would be to say offering exaltation to prospective brides is a eternal law.

It's no wonder the GA are silent today, there are so many contradictions no matter what position they take, there is a contradicting alternative position.

[huckelberry]

Kishkumen, I take your short presentation as in invitation for further thought and this being a discussion board I find myself questioning.

I have reservations about your view of the relationship between Protestants and ritual. I can see Protestants has having simplified ritual but I think it remains as central and import as in other branches of Christianity. Protestants attend worship services regularly , prayer meetings, private prayer, evangelistic meetings and the most central Christian ritual, Eucharist. Well some Protestants downplay the Eucharist but I think that is aberrant.
I think that the rituals are to underlay the broad business of Christian living which is understood to be the actual working out of the process of joining with God as described by John. (vine and branches, leading to fruit' leading to loving one another which I take to be the core of Theosis)
I think Protestants Catholics and Orthodox are in principal in agreement on this though the style of ritual has developed with differences.

I never said Protestants do not have rituals. At the same time, they have nothing close to the Divine Liturgy, Mass, or the Endowment. The key difference is in the function of ritual. For Protestants, as far as I am aware, rituals are symbolic, whereas in the Divine Liturgy and Mass an actual miracle manifests in the bread and wine becoming the body of Christ. The Endowment teaches the knowledge needed to ascend to the presence of God. As such, it is not symbolic, although there are many symbolic aspects to it. I would argued that Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Mormon temple ritual are all theurgic, whereas Protestant ritual is not.

Kishkumen, I was puzzled by your response. To think of Lords supper as only symbolic for Protestants misses the whole point of it. Yes Protestants do not believe transubstantiation but they believe that Christ is really present in Spirit and that a basis for personal transformation connecting with Gods nature is involved.

Then I thought perhaps becoming children of God is not so much what you had in mind with theurgic. I checked google for chance clarification. That article starts focused upon neoplatonic thought and practice. I suppose that is both reasonable and fitting your interests. I can see saying that the Protestant approach to how we may become transformed with God is different than the Neoplatonic model.

[Kishkumen]

Kishkumen, I was puzzled by your response. To think of Lords supper as only symbolic for Protestants misses the whole point of it. Yes Protestants do not believe transubstantiation but they believe that Christ is really present in Spirit and that a basis for personal transformation connecting with Gods nature is involved.

Then I thought perhaps becoming children of God is not so much what you had in mind with theurgic. I checked google for chance clarification. That article starts focused upon neoplatonic thought and practice. I suppose that is both reasonable and fitting your interests. I can see saying that the Protestant approach to how we may become transformed with God is different than the Neoplatonic model.

I am not sure what is puzzling. It seems like you get it. Various Protestant sects have an easy time jettisoning rituals on the grounds that they are unnecessary as mere tokens representing an inward transformation or divine presence. Orthodox, Catholics, and Mormons view the sacraments or ordinances as necessary. The latter is more of a theurgic approach.

[Kishkumen]

Again...I couldn't disagree more. What did they frame in a prejudicial light and the percentages of doing so would be my question. They wrote so much.

Where to begin, eh? I mean, they apply criticism to Mormonism that they do not apply to their own faith, for one thing. I have heard Sandra speak to this issue, but I didn’t think much of her answer. From the position of one following a flawed religion, she takes it upon herself to attack the religion of others, as though her faith were inherently superior. I don’t think it is any solider in historical terms than Mormonism. If anything, Protestantism, having abandoned much of Christian tradition and lacking authority, arguably, is on perhaps even shakier ground. I don’t begrudge her finding a new faith to her liking. I don’t agree with the lifetime pursuit of tearing the religion of others down.

[Moksha]

Kishkumen on BYP LIVE! Sunday, Oct 27th, 6 p.m. Mountain Time USA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_G0_086DQY

This will answer whether polygamy employed any celestial probing by space aliens. It could help explain why Joseph and Brigham kept coming back for more wives and perhaps confirm the pleasurability of the probing.

[Dr. Shades]

I don’t agree with the lifetime pursuit of tearing the religion of others down.

Did she say anything about Mormonism that wasn't true?

[I Have Questions]

Brian Hales says no sex.

FTR Hales has been begrudgingly conceding there was sex between Smith and “some” of his plural wives since at least 2017.

Some question whether Joseph Smith’s plural marriages included sexuality. The answer is yes or no, depending upon the type of plural marriage. Those that were for this life and the next (called “time and eternity”) could include sexual relations. Those that were limited to the next life (“eternity only”) presumably did not. Overall, evidence indicates infrequent sexual relations in less than half of Joseph Smith’s polygamous unions.

https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/audio/ ... sexuality/

Plural marriage only became a key feature of Mormonism after Emma found out her husband had been using his religious noteriety to have sex with women other than herself. I don’t think (I might be wrong) that having sex with multiple women was his original objective in starting his own religious sect. But once he groomed Emma into accepting his philandering as “Gods wishes” he escalated. His two motivations seem to become money and women. Which, when you think about it, is a very common occurrence amongst people who achieve positions of relative power.

[Kishkumen]

FTR Hales has been begrudgingly conceding there was sex between Smith and “some” of his plural wives since at least 2017.

Yes, Markk has pointed this out, too. Thanks, IHAQ!

Plural marriage only became a key feature of Mormonism after Emma found out her husband had been using his religious noteriety to have sex with women other than herself. I don’t think (I might be wrong) that having sex with multiple women was his original objective in starting his own religious sect. But once he groomed Emma into accepting his philandering as “Gods wishes” he escalated. His two motivations seem to become money and women. Which, when you think about it, is a very common occurrence amongst people who achieve positions of relative power.

I think he would have been tomcatting around regardless of what he was doing. He seems to have a weakness for the ladies. Polygamy may have been his way of making religious sense out of his own proclivities. His view of religion was very body and sex positive. I don’t think he saw anything inherently wrong with pleasure, so long as it was within some kind of divinely appointed framework. He saw the possibilities in the Old Testament patriarchal narratives and went from there. At the same time, he was probably not so dumb that he did not fear the blowback.