The Only Way I Can See Life As a Test

I have no problem with the idea that life is a test - but I define "life" as "eternal life" or "existence", and I define "test" as "learning process" or "growth experience".

 In that sense, I'm okay with seeing the events in our lives as tests - but I do so more in terms of "evaluation-providing (for correction and growth)" rather than "grade-producing (for final status)".

As an educator, I don't like the traditional model of instruct, test, assign grade, move on. I prefer the newer model of evaluate, design instruction based on evaluation, re-evaluate, modify instruction (if necessary), continue process until mastery is reached.

That version is how I see eternal life, and I think it continues until each person reaches their highest level of mastery possible.

In the End, What Really Matters?

When all is said and done, I believe what matters most is no more than that we search for and find peace and happiness, that we love and serve others and that we try to be the best people we can be on our life's journey.

We really can't know objectively about things outside our mortal vision (which varies from person to person), so, at the most fundamental level, all we are required to do is live according to the dictates of our own consciences, let us worship how, where or what we may.

The interesting thing is that, when you get to the heart of current Mormon theology (especially when you consider temple theology and vicarious work for the dead), the summary above is a pretty good one to describe the path to "perfection" (completeness, wholeness, full development) we call the Celestial Kingdom - and it's the heart of the Atonement within our theology. Our effort, limited though it is, is enough, through the grace of God and its limitless reach. 

Exaltation Is a Core Biblical Teaching

Exaltation is the Mormon equivalent of theosis, and the core of theosis is ancient and exists within and beyond Christianity.

It is the same general concept as the Eastern idea of the final state of being after a complete reincarnative existence. In Christianity, it is centered in the Biblical verses and passages that say we can become one with God - and I see that theme running from Genesis through Revelations. It was championed by early church leaders, and it still is taught in the Eastern Orthodox Church - which is my favorite Christian religion outside of Mormonism, for what that's worth. As I mentioned in the post last Thursday about what constitutes "the Gospel", I see Jesus of Nazareth as having preached the concept of theosis as central to his "good news" - and it is found in passages throughout nearly all of the epistles of the New Testament. The Intercessory prayer in John 17 is perhaps the best example.

Frankly, if anyone reads the Bible without theological preconceptions, I think it is very hard not to reach the conclusion that becoming like God is a major thread running through the entire compilation (although it isn't as explicit in the Old Testament as in the New Testament) - and, interestingly, it is not a thread at all in the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith came to believe it passionately (and even radically, I would say), but that belief developed as he focused on his Bible translation efforts, not before or during the publication of the Book of Mormon. I think that's one of the strongest reasons he once said that the main difference between Mormons and other Christians is that we believe the Bible, and they don't. (not "in the Bible", but what the Bible actually teaches)

Why I Don't Believe in Eternal Gestational Birth

Almost exactly two years ago, I wrote a post titled, "Who Gave Birth to God's Spirit Children?"  I had occasion recently to revisit a post on "Real Intent" titled, "Does Exaltation Mean Polygamy?" - and I added a clarifying comment in that thread to an earlier comment in which I said I was "appalled" by the idea of immortal pregnancy.  I am copying that comment here, along with links to the two posts I mentioned, in the hope that it will help someone understand why I feel so strongly about the belief in eternal gestational birth. 

------------------------------------------------------

It's not the idea that we will be creating life eternally that is appalling; in fact, I love that idea. That concept is one of my favorite in all of Mormon theology.  Eternal motherhood and fatherhood is beautiful and sublime - and, within Christianity, so unique.  To me, it is the very heart of the Restoration - the resurrection, if you will, of a murdered Divine Father and Mother (theologically). 

It's the idea that creating life after mortality will be exactly like it has been for thousands of years on earth that is appalling to me (although understandable, given the inability of people in the past to imagine any other way that life could be created) - and a large part of the revulsion I feel for that idea is the wink, wink way men often talk about only having one child if we had to go through mortal pregnancy and delivery.  We joke about it, but we mean it.  We (men) glamorize it but absolutely don't want to HAVE to go through it, so we are fine and dandy, thank you very much, if they (women) are the ones who GET to go through it there and here.  (Notice the difference in the bolded words; they are instructive to me.) 

I just don't see the creation of immortal spirits as an internal, gestational process that involves "birth" in the way we understand that word here on earth.  It's that concept (eternal, internal conception, gestation and birth) that I find appalling - especially since, generally speaking, men are deeply grateful we don't have to be involved in that process beyond the conception stage.  The fun without the pain vs. (ideally, but not always) the fun and the pain. 

Yeah, I can understand why many men might tend to be totally OK with women giving birth like that forever, but I disagree - passionately.

I Want to Be a Mormon Christian, Not a Christian Mormon

If you look closely at multiple General Conference talks and statements over the years, I think it's obvious that the top leadership of the Church believes there is a difference between church membership and Christian discipleship. In fact, at least twice in my memory during General Conference, it was said in crystal clear terms that activity in church doesn't guarantee Christian discipleship. The issue is that many talks appear to illustrate a belief that it's hard for most people to live a Christ-centered life without also having a church-centered life - and, frankly, they probably are correct in most cases.

Christianity and church affiliation are so intertwined now, as much outside the LDS Church as inside it, that it's really hard for people of pretty much any denomination (or even "non-denominational" congregations) to separate the two - and, given the communal nature of the New Testament focus, I'm not sure the two actually can be separated properly. In a very practical way, it really is difficult to divorce being a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth from being part of a religious community - a group "following", if you will. In Jesus' ministry, it wasn't a formal "church", per se - but people absolutely left family and friends to follow him around as he preached. They formed a religious community, even if they didn't build and gather in meetinghouses of their own.


Furthermore, as I have said in other posts here, the Mormon conception of the next life is not focused on individual salvation but rather communal exaltation. 

The difficulty here, in my opinion, is not that we need to separate the two affiliations totally and make it Christian discipleship vs. church membership; rather, we need to balance the two and prioritize them so that we live Christ-centered lives within the LDS Church - not that we live church-centered lives that include Christ.

In other words, we should be Mormon Christians - not Christian Mormons.

Is Tithing Necessary to Inherit the Celestial Kingdom?

Someone once asked me the question in the title of this post, and my answer was what would have been the other half of the title: "Only if You Are An Active Mormon."  Let me explain what I meant, realizing my wording was a bit tongue-in-cheek but also meant to be a bit of a "Zen slap" - something that smacks you upside the head and makes you think a little harder about something than you had previously.  

1) The LDS Church teaches that tithing is required to enter the temple, which, in a very real and practical way, can mean that tithing is required for exaltation.

2) The LDS Church teaches that any-freaking-body who ever has lived in the entire history of the planet earth may end up in the Celestial Kingdom and, therefore, be exalted - regardless of whether or not they have paid tithing (or even one penny in religious or charitable donations) in their entire lives.

3) Thus, tithing is taught as necessary ONLY if someone is a member of the LDS Church in this lifetime - and not for those who weren't (and there even is the underlying teaching that each of us will be judged according to how well we live what we understand individually, which provides a HUGE disclaimer even for those who have been baptized into the LDS Church).

There is an inherent conflict / opposition in that construct, if you really think about it. It is a paradoxical teaching - and, therefore, it would be easy to dismiss tithing completely as unnecessary in any cosmic way. I don't do that - for multiple reasons, one of which is that I have received adequate benefit from my own payment of tithes over the years (including the acknowledgment of the covenant relationship in providing for my needs more than once while I was unemployed and needed assistance) - and one more, which is that I have an adequate (for me, personally) intellectual understanding of the need for tithing.

So, what do I make of the conflict between the two polar opposite stances - neither of which I reject / both of which I understand and accept?

I take it to mean that God doesn't require tithing to be exalted - unless someone understands tithing and has committed to pay tithing, in whatever form that person understands. Likewise, God doesn't require chastity to be exalted - unless someone understands chastity and has committed to live a chaste life, in whatever form that person understands. God doesn't require abstinence from theft to be exalted - unless someone understands abstinence from theft and has committed not to steal, in whatever form that person understands. etc, etc, etc.

The LDS Church, however, as an organization, believes in tithing (and chastity and no stealing) and requires those things in order to state that it believes its members will be exalted - even as it does NOT require those things of those who are not members and do not understand them well enough to be accountable to live them.  Likewise, and importantly, it does not require those things of young children or the obviously mentally handicapped - again, since they may not understand them well enough to be accountable to live them.  The key is living up to what I understand. 

Hence, my Reader's Digest answer - which I believe is the fullest, most comprehensive yet concise definition:

No, tithing is not required for exaltation - unless you're an active member of the Church (but even then with theological disclaimers) who understands the reasons for tithing.

Sunday School Lesson Recap: The Atonement: Questions about Becoming Like God

My wife, my oldest son and I spoke in Sacrament Meeting today on the Atonement (outlines of our talks coming when I get the time), so in Sunday School we held another question and answer session about the Godhead, the Plan of Salvation and the Atonement. Two week ago, one of the students had asked a question that we didn't have time to discuss adequately, and I told them we would do so in a different lesson - so we started with that question.

1) When we talk about becoming like God, do we mean that we will end up as "equals" to Heavenly Father - or is Heavenly Father the "top God", so we always will be subject to / below Him?

First, I asked how the students would answer that question - if any of them had a particularly strong belief one way or the other. Two of the students said they tend to see it as becoming like God but always being subordinate to Heavenly Father, and one of them used the example of studying Greek mythology and how Zeus, Poseidon and Hades were the "ruling Gods" among the broader group of gods. I mentioned how interesting it is that our Godhead / Trinity concept is so similar in that regard, being composed of three gods, and then I described how members differ in how they answer the question - that, like so many other topics, faithful members can disagree or reach different conclusions.

2) Where does God live? Isn't there something in the scriptures that talks about a planet where God lives? Will we live on our own planets and create / manage our own universes?

We read from Abraham about Kolob, and I pointed out that it is said to be "near unto God" - NOT the actual dwelling place of God. We talked about our Article of Faith that mentions the fate of this Earth - that it will become a paradise and that we tend to interpret that to mean that it will become the Celestial Kingdom for those who lived on it. I mentioned the Church's recent statement that says we don't teach officially that each couple will get their own planet, and I said that we have no idea, really, if Heavenly Father lives somewhere with Heavenly Mother on a planet of their own - or if they were once human (the famous couplet) and live somewhere with other God-couples who also lived on whatever "Earth" was their mortal home - or if there is some other arrangement for them and us. I had mentioned in my Sacrament Meetings talk Elder Maxwell's quote about the dimensions of the cross not being as important as what happened on it, and I told them that this sort of discussion was a great example of not getting so caught up in the details that we miss the central message - that it's FAR more important that we believe in becoming like God than exactly where and in what situation we will be living.

3) When I mentioned the quote about the cross, that lead to a discussion of different views about the cross - why it happened that way, questions about the form of the cross used, where the cross fits in our theology, etc.

The main take-away from the discussion that I want to record here was that we do NOT reject the cross and shouldn't reject or ridicule others' use of the cross as a symbol of their faith, even if we don't use it as much as or like they do. I told them that the cross for most faithful Christians is like our temple garment - that they wear it as a manifestation and reminder of their faith. I told them that if we don't want people to mock the temple garment, we shouldn't mock their use of the cross.

That ended our question and answer period, so I used the remaining time to discuss again the Beatitudes and what they mean in our lives - since the main point of my Sacrament Meeting talk was that Jesus' life is just as important a part of the Atonement as the Garden of Gethsemane and Golgotha - and that we limit the Atonement and miss one of the most powerful elements of it when we focus exclusively on the Garden and the Cross, as important as they are.

Sunday School Lesson Recap: Having a Form of Godliness but Denying the Power Thereof

The topic for this month is "The Godhead", so I am focusing on the members of the Godhead in the order in which they are listed in the first article of faith: The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Last Sunday, I asked the students what they believe is the single most important aspect of the Gospel - not allowing anyone to repeat what someone else said previously. The list ended up including love, the Atonement, prayer, Priesthood, obeying the commandments, missionary work / sharing the Gospel, etc. I then asked them what they believe the most critical thing is that was "lost" as a result of the Great Apostasy, and they struggled a little more to come up with answers quickly to that question. I explained that the difference between the ease with which they answered those questions is due mostly to their better understanding of what we believe, in isolation, than what we believe that is unique - and especially what we believe now that is taught in the Bible as included in what Jesus taught but not taught, generally, in the rest of Christianity.

I told them that I personally believe the most important difference that Jesus taught but was "lost" over time is the nature of Godhood: both the nature of God, the Father, and the existence of God, the Mother. I told them that understanding that difference is important, so we turned to JSH 1:19 to see what Joseph was told (and what he wasn't told) about WHY he shouldn't join any other sect.

Rather than have to spend a lot of time reconstructing that discussion, I am linking to a post I wrote back in 2008 on Mormon Matters in which I laid out almost exactly what we discussed. Please read that post, then return here for the end of the lesson summary.

Common Scriptures in Review: JSH 1:19

We then talked about what it means to "have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof". We talked about how there is no power in having spirits sit on clouds and praise you forever - that real power is taking something that is not godlike and making it godlike - of bridging the "unbridgeable gap", to put it in Protestant terms. Thus, when I speak of the central truth lost in the Great Apostasy, I focus on the idea that "I am a child of God" in a very real, evolutionary way - that we have heavenly parents and can become like them. Thus, throughout the entire year, we will be talking about everything within that framework - how every topic and every lesson relates to becoming like God. 

Hitler Might Not End Up in Hell: Why I Believe This Life Alone Does Not Determine Our Eventual End

When it comes to who we believe will be punished for their actions, we make exceptions all the time, gladly, for those whom we understand to be less than fully accountable for those actions – including their acceptance of Jesus and/or Heavenly Father in this life. We generally limit that type of exception to children and the mentally disabled, but I have no idea about any specific limitations Hitler might have had that might have limited his accountability – so, even in that case, I’ll leave the judgment to God.

(Psychopaths are a fascinating discussion when dealing with agency and accountability, since, by clinical definition translated into Mormon-speak, they are understood to be unable to feel the type of remorse that leads to repentance. Were Hitler, Dahmer, Bundy, etc. truly accountable? I certainly want to believe so, but I simply have no idea when it comes right down to it.)

I like the more complicated, multiple-glories concept of Mormonism specifically because it leans toward a break down of the tendency to categorize and judge others – to label them as either Heaven-bound or Hell-bound - to damn them in a real and practical way in our own minds. Sure, we still do it with three degrees of glory and Outer Darkness (and even degrees within the Celestial Kingdom), but the more gradations there are the less likely we are to be positive we understand someone well enough to make that call – or, at least, I hope that is the case.  

If even for no other reason than that, I like the multiple degrees of glory far more than the heaven/hell split. I prefer a simple “many mansions theology”, and I like the idea of etermal progression that ends only when each person has reached his or her ultimate potential (whatever that is individually) – so I tend not to accept the idea that our final reward is determined when we leave this mortal existence. I see at least five stages of development built into our theology already – so, while I don’t believe in multiple mortal probations exactly, I certainly am open to the idea of more stages after mortal death about which we simply don’t have or need information at this time.

One of the Central Paradoxes of Mormonism

I believe pure Mormonism teaches, at the most fundamental level, that salvation and exaltation have nothing to do with religious or denominational affiliation in this life, despite how much we stress the importance of missionary work and earthly conversion.  We teach that this life is the most important part of our eternal existence (and I agree with that concept, since "now" is all over which we have any control) and that missionary work is of paramount importance (and I love and am involved actively in that work), but, in the end, all will be held accountable only for how they lived what they believed - meaning good, sincere people of all ages will be blessed equally regardless of whether or not they hear and accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ in this life.  Thus, we have an emphasis on the primacy of preaching the Gospel coupled with a theology that says all will be blessed fully and graciously even if we do not do so. 

This represents one of the most fundamental paradoxes of Mormonism - the need for specific conversion work now coupled with no eternal consequences on others for not doing that work. 

In case anyone disagrees with the universal nature of the grace we teach in the LDS Church, I will try to explain what I mean:

1) "As in Adam ALL die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (I Corinthians 5:22) 

The Atonement pays for physical death for ALL who ever have lived - no matter what religion they believed in this life and what denomination they attended, if any. This covers atheists and agnostics, as well. "All" means all. Period. Therefore, all are saved from physical death, and all except the Sons of Perdition are redeemed from spiritual death ("Hell" - endless life in the kingdom of Lucifer). This means that all who ever have lived obtain a reward for having lived here on Earth, even those who end up as Sons of Perdition. Everyone except the Sons of Perdition inherit a degree of God's glory in a divine kingdom.

2) Those who die without having had a chance to hear and, more importantly, understand the Gospel will have that opportunity at some point in their eternal existence.

Therefore, even if someone dies without having accepted the Gospel in any obvious way, they can be exalted - if they lived the best they could according to the dictates of their own conscience. Furthermore, there simply is no way to look inside a person's heart and know if that person truly had an opportunity to understand the Gospel fully - which is highlighted by the next point.

3) There will be LDS and non-LDS in all kingdoms of glory.

All modern prophets have said that there will be those who are not LDS in this life who will end up in all the kingdoms of glory, and all modern prophets also have said that there are those who are baptized, active members of the LDS Church in this life who also will end up in all the kingdoms of glory - since where we end up essentially is a result of who we become (what glory we can abide when all is said and done), not who we appear to be to others. It is possible for a baptized, confirmed member to jump off the deep end into wickedness and depravity.  In other words, all modern prophets have said that baptism and confirmation alone are no guarantee of exaltation - and, they also have said that even active attendance won't cut it if it's not accompanied by a spiritual conversion. 

4) Ultimately, God is the judge of all, since we just don't understand anyone well enough to make final judgments of them.

This means that we really don't know who has had an opportunity to understand the Gospel fully and who hasn't. We often think we do, but we just don't know so many things about others that we can't be their judge. Only God can see into each soul and know the right reward for them. That is important to understand if we really do accept the idea that God is the Judge and that we simply can't make that determination fully and with perfect clarity.  I take, "Judge not, that ye be not judged" much more literally than many people do - especially when it comes to assumptions about where others will be when all is said and done. 

5) There is no obvious, objective, outwardly-visible criteria (at least to us) that defines who will be where - at least, not on a large scale that can be applied to all. 
 
This is hardest to accept and internalize when it comes to those of whom we have high expectations - especially our own family members (both physically and at church).  We generally are hardest on those we think we understand - and we generally are most judgmental toward "our own".  However, when it comes right down to it, we simply don't understand anyone well enough to make a perfect judgment about their ultimate, eternal fate. 
 
So, Buddhists, evangelicals, Muslims, Catholics, atheists, agnostics, Mormons, Baptists, wiccans, and just about any other type of person, including inactive LDS and those who have left the LDS Church, can be exalted - as long as they lived the best they could according to the dictates of their own conscience (including doing the best they could to repent to the best of their understanding and ability). That's God's call as the Eternal Judge, not ours as fallen (wo)man - since he can see performance compared to potential, while all we can see is performance (and, really, only public performance, in many cases). We might make value judgments based on our limited understanding of the full picture, but we are commanded not to do so (in too many scriptural passages to begin to list here) - because we are flat-out wrong in too many cases. 
 
I understand fully the issues such a view brings with it, but I believe it passionately.

Heaven Is Not a Place or Destination

One of the things about the concept of eternity in Mormonism that is radically different than any other Christian theology - and is one of my favorite aspects, frankly - is the idea that "there must needs be opposition in ALL things".

I know that can be discouraging to some people who just want to rest from all their cares and troubles, but I just can't accept eternal laziness with no opposition or personal growth and effort. (the sitting around on a cloud forever playing a harp and telling GOD how wonderful he is - pardon the snark, but I just don't like that image) To me, that would be Hell. Thus, I believe we become "heavenly" by being able to create "an internal heaven" no matter our external circumstances. Iow, we become Celestial Beings - to put it into more traditional Mormon verbiage. Ioow (in other, other words - *grin*), "heaven" is not a place or destination; it's a condition - just like "God" is not a person or Being; it's a condition.

Please, nobody take that as a beating stick to add guilt if you aren't heavenly inside. I don't mean that at all. I just believe it can be an empowering goal and process - as long as it's understood upfront that not being there is FINE. Again, it's the effort and the journey, not the current situation.

It's much like the Elizabeth Edwards quote I posted recently, which I would recommend reading if you haven't already.

We Tend to Be Too Hard on Our Own

Within Christianity, Mormon theology is one of the most expansive, "universalist" in existence. Our entire structure of temple ordinances is based on the idea that absolutely anyone can "pass the test" regardless of the religion they believe during this life - or even if they are hard-core atheists.

It's also not correct to say that such universalism applies only to some degree of glory but not the Celestial Kingdom. Absolutely everyone (minus a few Sons of Perdition who are the exception that proves the rule) will receive salvation within Mormonism simply through the Atonement of Jesus, so temple work can't be about people qualifying for the Telestial Kingdom - or even the Terrestrial Kingdom, since that essentially is the same place just with nicer people. (Seriously, that's the best description of the difference I've ever heard.) It has to be about opening the possibility of the Celestial Kingdom to ALL - making sure ALL have a chance to pass the test, if you will.

The difficulty is that we tend to be harder on our own than we are on those we don't know. The standard is the same, but we tend to think those who have been in the Church have had their chance while those outside the Church haven't. We forget that we aren't judges of final rewards. It's one of the most deeply ingrained "natural (wo)man" tendencies that exists, and, as a result, it exists in many members and, thus, within the LDS Church - but it's not part of pure Mormonism. I believe it's REALLY important to understand that. 

Sure, too many members don't get that fully, but it's there in great big font and blinking neon colors within the theology itself.

Getting to the Temple is NOT the Goal of Mormonism

I had a conversation with a Catholic friend at one point that I want to share with everyone today.

My friend, after a long discussion about the temple, said the following:

"For Mormons, the goal is to get to the temple."

He then said:

"It seems to me the real goal, for all of us as Christians, is to get back to God."

My response was: 

The goal for Mormons is NOT to get to the temple. Period. Full stop. The goal of the temple is to focus us more intently on getting back to God. Thus, the temple is NOT an end destination; rather, it's a step along the process - a symbolic representation of our ultimate goal. Not one Mormon I know would bat an eye if I stated that from the pulpit in Sacrament Meeting.

Just as there is a real power in performing a physical ordinance like baptism that is experienced by the submersion of BOTH body and spirit (the whole soul) under water (which is symbolic of the life we desire to live after baptism - being fully immersed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, body and spirit - in order to help us return to God), there is real power in what occurs in the temple for the exact same reason. No ordinance is an ultimate goal in and of itself; every ordinance simply is the manifestation of our desire to achieve our ultimate goal - which is exactly what you say it is, getting back to God in the state he intended when he created us. 

We just differ as to what that state is. 

Jesus Does Not Sit on an Unreachable Pedestal

One of the things I love MOST about "pure Mormonism" is that it actually doesn't put Jesus on an unreachable pedestal.

Seriously, if you think about it, the whole idea that we should strive to be Christ-like and that our ultimate ideal is to become like God really destroys the conceptual "gulf of separation" that exists in the rest of Christianity - and even in most of the rest of religion at large. When I look at "having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof", it is exactly this idea (clinging to an unreachable, unattainable God) that I see as its center.

Mormon Theology: God's Paternal Love

[NOTE: This post is about theology, not about people. It is about what religions and denominations teach in their official creeds, not about what members believe and practice at the individual level.]

Ultimately, one of the reasons I love Mormon theology so much is that it is such a loving theology - FAR more loving than any other Christian denomination of which I am aware. (I don't count Unitarian Universalists, frankly, because, as much as I admire them, I see them as a non-denominational church with a denominational name only.) By a "loving theology", I mean:

1) God does what He does out of what I call "true parental love" - not some condescending "love" that is more like a master has for his pets. I mean that literally. Think of the ultimate end in mainstream Christian theology, and it's incredibly self-serving of God. I want to say this carefully, but it boils down essentially to:

"Adore me. Tell me how much you love me. Praise me. **Give me the glory.** After all, I deserve it; I'm God, and you aren't."

In Calvinism, it can be taken to the extreme that yields:

"Dance for me - all of you. DO your best to please me, and, at the end, I'll let you know which of you I have already chosen to bless and which of you danced your darnedest just so I could take pleasure in your dancing - before I roasted you forever in that fiery lake over there."

In Mormon theology, however, God's entire "work and glory" is to do all he can to make sure his children grow to become like him. His "glory" is the same "glory" I receive when my kids grow up to be good people - the pride and joy and accomplishment I feel when I know that my actions have helped produce something beautiful and good and uplifting and enlightening and wonderful and OF ME. That's true parental love and true grace (at-one-ment) - and it simply doesn't exist in most Christian theology.

"As God Is, Man May Become" Is a BIBLICAL Concept

Personally, I think the doctrine of becoming like God is one of the central tenets of the Bible.

It is taught in one way or another over and over and over again there - in both the Old and New Testaments. It is my absolute favorite teaching of the Restored Gospel - and, ironically, it is one of the core ties we have to many Eastern religions.

I wrote a fairly long paper about this topic long ago for a divinity school class, but here is the bare-bones, stripped down, bullet-point version - to the best of my memory, and not taking the time to quote actual scriptural verses (since they are so numerous as to be over-whelming):

1) It is clear that the Bible teaches we are created in the image of God.

2) It is clear that the Bible teaches that we are to become like God.

In the OT, this generally is phrased as follows: "Be _______, because God is _______." The direct line reasoning is that we are to develop a certain characteristic specifically because God has that characteristic. The penultimate statement of this is the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus laid out traits that make us "blessed" and then says, "Be ye therefore (by the pattern laid out in the previous verses) perfect (complete, whole, fully developed), even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (I believe the ultimate statement of this is the Intercessory Prayer recorded in the Gospel of John.) In the Book of Mormon version, when Jesus appears to the Nephites, he makes it even clearer that this is a final state of progression, by adding himself to the injunction.

3) The NT takes the OT admonitions and actually adds a stated reward. The joint-heir change to the inheritance custom - the "see him as he is, for we shall be like him" - the "one as we are one" - etc. all provide context for the command.

Interestingly, the Book of Mormon says exactly nothing about becoming like God, except in 3 Nephi. I think this is for two primary reasons:

1) The basic teaching is almost omnipresent in the Bible, and Mormon and Moroni made it perfectly clear that one of the core purposes of their record was to inspire those who would "believe this" (the Book of Mormon) to "believe that" (the Bible). (Note: It's not to believe IN the Bible, but to actually believe what it says. - hat tip to Robinson's "Believing Christ") If the concept of becoming like God is central to the Bible, it wouldn't be necessary in the Book of Mormon abridgment to "waste space" detailing it.

2) If it were taught in the Book of Mormon, it would be much easier for non-Mormon Christians to dismiss it as a uniquely Mormon heresy. They still can reject it as such, but the fact that it's not taught in the Book of Mormon means they are rejecting the Bible, not the Book of Mormon, when they reject the concept.

Summary: I see the concept of becoming like God to be a core Christian doctrine - in fact, THE core Christian doctrine of the Bible. I see the rejection of it as THE core abomination of the Great Apostasy.

One more thing: I personally have no problem questioning / putting on a shelf / not accepting right now the first part of the oft-quoted couplet - that as man is God once was. I know Joseph taught it in one sermon, and I know others extrapolated on it, but there is only one small verse in the Bible from which it is intuited - and Joseph himself attributed the idea to that verse. Pres. Hinckley said in his TV interview years ago that we don't "teach or emphasize" it anymore.  If it ends up being wrong and going the way of other speculation, I'm fine with that. If it ends up being right, I will tip my hat and be fine with it.

Becoming Like God is a Biblical Teaching, Not a Mormon Heresy

Personally, I believe the doctrine of becoming like God is one of the central tenets of the Bible. It is taught in one way or another over and over and over again there - in both the Old and New Testaments. It is my absolute favorite teaching of the Restored Gospel - and, ironically, it is one of the core ties we have to many Eastern religions.

I wrote a fairly long paper at one point for a divinity school class, but here is the bare-bones, stripped down, bullet-point version - to the best of my memory, and not taking the time to quote actual scriptural verses:

1) It is clear that the Bible teaches we are created in the image of God. That is so widely accepted to be a given, although many have interpreted it in varying ways to make it non-literal.

2) It is clear that the Bible teaches that we are to become like God. In the OT, this generally is phrased as follows: "Be __________, because God is __________." The direct line reasoning is that we are to develop a certain characteristic specifically because God has that characteristic. The penultimate statement of this is the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus laid out traits that make us "blessed" and then says, "Be ye therefore (by the pattern laid out in the previous verses) perfect (complete, whole, fully developed), even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." In the Book of Mormon version, he makes it even clearer that this is a final state of progression, but he adds himself to the injunction.

3) The NT takes the OT admonitions and actually adds a stated reward. The joint-heir change to the inheritance custom - the "see him as he is, for we shall be like him" - the "one as we are one" - etc. all provide context for the command.

Interestingly, the Book of Mormon says exactly nothing about becoming like God, except in 3 Nephi. I think this is for two primary reasons:

1) The basic teaching is almost omni-present in the Bible, and Mormon and Moroni made it perfectly clear that one of the core purposes of their record was to inspire those who would "believe this" (the Book of Mormon) to "believe that" (the Bible). (Note: It's not to believe IN the Bible, but to actually believe what it says. - hat tip to Robinson) If the concept of becoming like God is central to the Bible, it wouldn't be necessary in the Book of Mormon abridgment to "waste space" detailing it.

2) If it were taught in the Book of Mormon, it would be much easier for non-Mormon Christians to dismiss it as a uniquely Mormon heresy. They still can reject it as such, but the fact that it's not taught in the Book of Mormon means they are rejecting the Bible, not the Book of Mormon, when they reject the concept.

Summary: I see the concept of becoming like God to be a core Christian doctrine - in fact, THE core Christian doctrine of the Bible. I see the rejection of it as THE core abomination of the Great Apostasy.

Gender Roles As Mortal Compromise

Any woman who has been through the temple and remains true to the covenants she accepts therein is clothed in the priesthood throughout the rest of her life.

Also, that happens prior to what we commonly term "the endowment". Thus, only those who "accept and receive the Priesthood" can be endowed with the understanding and power of God. Phrased a bit differently, it would be accurate to say that all those who accept and receive the Priesthood in this manner can be endowed thusly.

The Church in the fullness of its own ideal world is not sexist.

The relationship between Adam and Eve prior to the Fall is one of complete equality; the difference after the Fall is a compromise adapted to the lone and dreary world. The woman was given the primary responsibility to oversee the fulfillment of the first commandment in a way that would bring glory to God (nurturing the children they would bear); the man was given the primary responsibility to make sure that could happen (protecting and providing for his wife and children).

The temple recognizes the mortal compromise in what it asks of women (what is required of them to live in the lone and dreary world and multiply), but it is critical to realize that it is phrased in exactly that way - asking those who are equal up to that point (and in the temple) to accept a "role" when they "enter" (and return to) the lone and dreary world - when they leave their "symbolic immortality" and return to their everyday "mortality". The promise is that such a compromise will not last forever - that once they leave mortality the original relationship will be restored and they will live together as Kings and Queens, Priests and Priestesses - united equally as one.

Mormon Reincarnation and Universalism

I am a universalist in the Biblical sense of "as in Adam ALL die, even so in Christ shall ALL be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:22) I don't see how any believing Christian can address that verse (or the entire chapter of 1 Cor. 15, actually) without being "universalist" in that way - since "all who die in Adam" means "all who ever have lived". In Mormon terms, that means I believe all who ever have lived (minus very few Sons of Perdition, who are the exception that proves the rule) will be "saved" and receive a degree of glory.

I also am universalist in that I believe exaltation is "available" for all - and I am "more universalist" than many other Mormons in that I believe we will be shocked in the end at the percentages that make up the various kingdoms. Frankly, I don't preach reincarnation, since it's not part of the Christian paradigm, but I see a "reincarnative process" in our theology that is missing completely from the rest of Christianity - that informs how we are universalist at heart.

At the very least, we teach of 5-6 distinct states of being - and one more if I am allowed to define creatively.

1) Intelligence (no idea, really, what that means);

2) pre-mortal spirit (no idea, really, what that means other than "created" by exalted parents - or what process was used in that creation);

3) Mortal human (a combination of "immortal" spirit and mortal body);

4) post-mortal spirit (a pre-mortal spirit with more memories); [*grin*]

5) post-resurrection being (which might or might not be "separated" [sorry for the pun] from);

6) post-judgment, "glorified" being (assigned to a kingdom overseen by a God [Father, Son or Holy Ghost].

7) The 7th stage would be Heavenly Parent.

It is noteworthy that the first SIX stages are universal in our theology. The only one that is not universalist in every way is #7 - Heavenly Parent. It also is instructive to note that those who accuse Mormons of being arrogant exclusionists almost "universally" are less universalist than we are. That is one of the most ironic aspects of religious debate I can imagine - and it influences my frustration with conversations with others about temple ordinances. Those discussions generally are couched in terms of the exclusionary arrogance such ordinances illuminate, when, in fact, they are the practical core of our universalism.

Why I Don't Like to Say that God Is "Embodied"

"Embodied" is a word we use sometimes when talking of God, the Father, and Jesus, the Christ. I personally don't like to use it - specifically because of the baggage that surrounds defining the term as people struggle to explain exactly what it means. Let me try to explain.

1) The most concise statement is the one in D&C 130:22, which states:

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit."

2) That appears to be a straightforward statement of "embodiment" - until you consider that we believe Spirits are "embodied" in a very real and "tangible" way.

D&C 131:7-8 says:

"There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter."

3) We speak generally of "flesh" as the outward surface of our bodies (the flexible structure "within" which we are organized) and "bones" as the inward, skeletal structure of our bodies (the "calcified" structure "around" which we are organized). Each of these aspects of our physical bodies is corruptible and subject to decay. The question then becomes, what does it mean to have a resurrected "body of flesh and bones, as tangible as man's"?

By the way, we use the term "body of flesh and bones" because that was the way Jesus described His resurrected body to the disciples to whom He appeared, with whom he spoke and for whom He ate in Luke 24:37-39:

" But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not "flesh and bones", as ye see me have."

So, the D&C makes it clear that spirits are "tangible" and "embodied" just as our physical bodies are - only to a different degree and "discernibility". Given these statements, it becomes very difficult to say with certainty exactly what it means for God to be "tangible" with a body of "flesh and bones" and to be "embodied".

That is a long-winded way of saying that I hesitate to use the term "embodied" specifically I believe it does not describe the condition of the Father (and the Son) in any meaningful way - given our belief that spirits also are "embodied" in a very real way. I prefer to use a description that focuses more on our relation, and I think it is accurate to say that literally "becoming perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" - literally becoming god-like in the fullest sense by reaching a state of godhood similar to that of the Father - literally "growing up to be like Father" - is something that is not found in the orthodox Christian theology of our day. In fact, if there is one thing that gets us labeled as a heretical, damnable cult, that probably is it - even though it is taught MUCH more clearly in the Bible than in the Book of Mormon.

Given all of that, rather than saying that God is "embodied", I generally say something like, "God is our actual Father" - meaning a creator whose offspring can grow to become like Him - whose children can grow up and approximate Him - who is actually a Father in every sense of the word, not just the "spiritual" (or allegorical or symbolic or figurative) ones.