The Couplet

[Sleeping in EQ]

President Hinckley publicly expressed uncertainty about Lorenzo Snow's couplet: "As man is, God once was, as God is, Man may become."

I too have a problem with the couplet.

Mormon scripture distinctively refers to God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost as "Eternal God":

D&C 20:28, Alma 11:44, 2 Ne. 9:8, 2 Ne. 26:12, Mosiah 15:3-4, Deut. 33:27, Heb. 9:14, the scriptures that teach the sacramental prayers, and the title page of the Book of Mormon.

Yet Mormon scripture always (I think, see below) refers to others, including exhalted women and men, as "godesses" and "gods":

Psalm 8, Psalm 82 (both Psalm passages have Elohim in the plural, which could, I believe, be translated as angels--a KJV wimp out--gods--which I'd prefer, or Gods--which seems unlikely given that in 82:1 God is judging in the middle of the Elohim, an act which seems to me to construct a hierarchy that doesn't make sense in terms of the Godhead and the "Eternal God" passages above), D&C 76:58, 121:32, 132:17-20, 37, Alma 12:31 (Adam & Eve having an attribute that made them "as Gods"), and Moses 4:11.

D&C 121:32 appears to be particularly helpful in this regard: "According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was, that should be reserved unto the finishing and the end thereof, when every man shall enter into his eternal presence and into his immortal rest."

The passages that make things even more interesting are, of course, Abraham 4 and 5 with their frequent references to "Gods" (The Psalm passages may be relevant here too). I think the context supports the tritheistic (but not trinitarian, and certainly not in the "doctrine of the trinity" sense) Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as being referenced, but this is also one of the first places I would go to look for a doctrine of Heavenly Mother. (BTW, those who think Heavenly Mother is the Holy Ghost have a problem in John 15, as I understand it. The Paraclete passages there give a masculine article to the Holy Spirit where they could have given a neutral one. Someone who isn't just a dabbler in Greek, please jump in).

I'm comfortable that a notion of Eternal God, as well as Gods, is acceptable in Mormonism, but see it as very problematic for anyone trying to make Mormons into conventional trinitarians.

I don't have a problem with theosis (or deification), and could argue it both from Greek philosophy and from what I would consider non-Hellinized Christian thinkers (at least in this regard) like Augustine and Iraneaus. What I do have a problem with, is the parallelism that Lorenzo Snow's couplet implies (and I think it's clear that LS had something like Anthanasios' quip in mind). In other words, I'm OK with the idea of God becoming man so that men and women can become gods (little "g"), but men and women becoming Gods (big "G") strikes me as problematic on a number of levels (Ironically, I think the big "G" is what trinitarians would have to argue, and that they would also have to argue for a spiritual resurrection to account for passages like 2 Pet. 1:4)

Where all of this lands is:

1. I would argue a notion of Eternal God wherein God always was, is, and will be God, and is material (see D&C 93 where spirit is also considered matter), and consequently never went through a process of theosis.

2. I would argue that there are three Eternal Gods that we worship, and would acknowledge the possibility of something like a Heavenly Mother also being an Eternal God (but possibly not worshipped for reasons that belong in another post).

3. I would argue that we too have an uncreated nature (intelligences), and that through theoisis we can become gods and goddesses. I think this fits nicely with Mormon notions of creation as the organization of matter (and not as creation ex nihlo), and I think process philosophy has promise for this notion as well, in that it would allow me to locate truth in a creation process instead of in an object--and Eternal God could be an object outside of that process.)

So I would say that in one sense, my Mormon thinking allows for men and women to become deity, but in another sense it does not (in the big "G" sense).

As an aside, I think some of what I'm considering touches on Adam's mentioning of a "miracle problem." I'd suggest that despite a few passages in scripture, Mormon's don't treat the Holy Ghost as equally Eternal God. They treat him like Hermes to the Father's Zeus (my use of a Greek example is deliberate), and have built their worship in such a fashion so as to discourage worship of the Holy Spirit. I can see this problem in aesthetic terms as well. In brief, I'm saying I'd expect a languishing of dramatic gifts of the Spirit when we treat the Holy Ghost as less than equal to the other members of the Godhead. I'd also observe that Mormon thinking is very convoluted on notions of the Holy Ghost, as evidenced in the Lectures on Faith (formerly part of the D&C), and ill-defined notions such as the Light of Christ that seemed to get plugged in to paint over incoherence.

I think what I'm ruminating about (and this is very rough, but I wanted to get imput) is compatible with Mormonism, but certainly is not the only direction in which one might attempt to develop Mormon theology.

Pelagius, Solon, Chapel Hill, and others please weigh in. I'm just trying to explore some ideas and don't by any means think I have "the answers."

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

President Hinckley publicly expressed uncertainty about Lorenzo Snow's couplet: "As man is, God once was, as God is, Man may become."


Where all of this lands is:

1. I would argue a notion of Eternal God wherein God always was, is, and will be God, and is material (see D&C 93 where spirit is also considered matter), and consequently never went through a process of theosis.

I'm not Pelagius, Solon or Chapel Hill but let me provide an simple point about your #1.

My son is 8 months old and is male. He doesn't have all the capabilities of a grown man but he is nonetheless male. Couldn't God on a grander scale always have been God but not developed? Maybe we are all Gods right now and haven't developed into our full potential. This would explain some men performing miracles in that they are discovering the true divinity of their nature. Maybe that is why Jesus could do what he could. He understood his divinty like no other human before him. Maybe that was the purpose of the 40 day fast.

"this is life eternal to know the one and eternal god"

Just some rambling thoughts of mine

[jay santos]

Good post, SIEQ. I'm no scholar, but I have some feelings about this.

1. I believe there is enough ambiguity and confusion in official LDS doctrine on the nature of God and deification of man that there is a lot of room for disagreement. I don't go to non-binding statements made by Joseph Smith or anyone for clarification. I go for what is being taught in today's church by prophet and apostles, and it is being intentionally avoided--even distancing ourselves a bit (i.e. Pres. Hinckley's TV interview statement).

2. What feels right and logical to me is that man will never be a God in the sense that God the Father is a God. Likewise, God the Father was never a man like I am, going through the sinning and repentance process. I feel very uncomfortable when the subject in church becomes something like "what kind of worlds are you going to create when you're a God"?

3. Though an interesting theory, I don't agree whatsoever with your take on the LDS perspective on the Holy Ghost limiting our experience with miracles/gifts of the spirit.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

I'm not Pelagius, Solon or Chapel Hill but let me provide an simple point about your #1.

My son is 8 months old and is male. He doesn't have all the capabilities of a grown man but he is nonetheless male. Couldn't God on a grander scale always have been God but not developed? Maybe we are all Gods right now and haven't developed into our full potential. This would explain some men performing miracles in that they are discovering the true divinity of their nature. Maybe that is why Jesus could do what he could. He understood his divinty like no other human before him. Maybe that was the purpose of the 40 day fast.

"this is life eternal to know the one and eternal god"

Just some rambling thoughts of mine

Thanks for picking up your machete and trying to cut a path through the guano. By all means, let's work at this if you're game!

Later, I'll try to respond at length, but I find your paraphrasing of John 17:3 to be inaccurate and problematic:

"And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."

So we are all "the only true God" yet Jesus is excluded? Clearly there is a distinction between the Eternal Godhead we worship and a notion of God's nature that we share. That passage could be problematic for trinitarians as well as for what you're saying (one true God AND Jesus Christ?????? I'll have to dig in on the possible hierarchy within the Godhead another time). And Jesus is excluded in that passage despite the fact that Colossians declares:

1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 for in F8 him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him.

and

2:9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

and

D&C 20:28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

and

Title page of the BoM: "And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God

I of course believe in the uncreatedness of intelligences, and have indicated my belief in men and women becoming gods and godesses, but the verse that declares the uncreatedness of intelligences makes problems for your position:

D&C 93:29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

Man is with God. Not, God is the eternal part of man. Worse, man in this instance obviously does not refer to embodied or mortal man. In this passage man is declared to be intelligence, the light of truth, but to also be distinct from God (you are distinct from something you are with, or from something you accompany). In this passage, man and God are seperate notions.

I think failing to distinguish between god, God, and man is to play semantic games and to fail to account for dozens of scriptures, any coherent notion of "Eternal God," and the distinctiveness of man as a creation of God.

[MikeWaters]

do you all worship your parents?

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Thanks for picking up your machete and trying to cut a path through the guano. By all means, let's work at this if you're game!

Hey now... I never professed that I was exactly right... I was just thinking out loud to your question

I was really trying to think outside the box.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Later, I'll try to respond at length, but I find your paraphrasing of John 17:3 to be inaccurate and problematic:

"And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."

So we are all "the only true God" yet Jesus is excluded?

Why would Jesus be excluded? Couldn't someone be part of team and be sent to deliver a message?

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I think failing to distinguish between god, God, and man is to play semantic games and to fail to account for dozens of scriptures, any coherent notion of "Eternal God," and the distinctiveness of man as a creation of God.

"Creation of Man" is probably what needs to be defined. Is it creation of Mortal man? is it creation of our intelligence?

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

do you all worship your parents?

when I was little I wanted to be like my dad... does that count?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

Hey now... I never professed that I was exactly right... I was just thinking out loud to your question

I was really trying to think outside the box.

Yeah, I know. I didn't mean to be harsh.

The guano you are hacking at is my thinking!

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

when I was little I wanted to be like my dad... does that count?

do you worship your father now?