LDS and becoming gods

[lax16]

Re temple marriage: what counts as “rejection” is for God to declare, as He is the Judge. It is not our place to judge.

Who is talking about judging?

The point is Mormons believe that those not married in the temple are servants of the married. That is church teaching. It is in the official manuals.

Re manuals: manuals are written by man and not viewed as infalliabe.

So official LDS teaching manuals are not guaranteed to be the truth? Why use them if they do not officially teach the truth of the Mormon faith?

 

[ConfirmedAgnes]

My friends who are of the LDS faith explained it to me like this–faithful married couples in the Mormon church have the abilities to becomes gods after death. To them, this is different than becoming God himself.

In the LDS faith they believe long ago their Heavenly Father married another god, known as the Heavenly Mother, and these two gave birth to many spirits who lived in peace and harmony on a spirit world. Eventually all of these spirits were put into human bodies and put on earth because before Heavenly Father could become God he had to endure mortal trials on a physical world as well.

For those living now of days, post death, at the end of time, these faithful married couples get to become gods of their own. Heavenly Father is still their ultimate father they love and worship as God, but after enduring trials they earn the ability to becomes gods as God is a god. Within the couple unit in the celestial kingdom, the husband, who is a god at this point, has the job of creating worlds. The wife, who is a god as well, has a different type of job. Her job is to have spirit children to people the worlds created by her husband.

So in conclusion–yes each person becomes a god, but each person has a different role, and they don’t replace God.

That is what my LDS friends have told me. I have in fact heard this spiel many times because we used to have faith talks a lot–I hope that clarifies your question!

 

[zaffiroborant]

My friends who are of the LDS faith explained it to me like this–faithful married couples in the Mormon church have the abilities to becomes gods after death. To them, this is different than becoming God himself.

In the LDS faith they believe long ago their Heavenly Father married another god, known as the Heavenly Mother, and these two gave birth to many spirits who lived in peace and harmony on a spirit world. Eventually all of these spirits were put into human bodies and put on earth because before Heavenly Father could become God he had to endure mortal trials on a physical world as well.

For those living now of days, post death, at the end of time, these faithful married couples get to become gods of their own. Heavenly Father is still their ultimate father they love and worship as God, but after enduring trials they earn the ability to becomes gods as God is a god. Within the couple unit in the celestial kingdom, the husband, who is a god at this point, has the job of creating worlds. The wife, who is a god as well, has a different type of job. Her job is to have spirit children to people the worlds created by her husband.

So in conclusion–yes each person becomes a god, but each person has a different role, and they don’t replace God.

That is what my LDS friends have told me. I have in fact heard this spiel many times because we used to have faith talks a lot–I hope that clarifies your question!

So the current God the Father will have “Gods” worshiping him and those “Gods” in turn will have spirit children who need bodies, enter mortality and worship their God the Father?

 

[jane_doe]

Who is talking about judging?

You’re judging whether or not a couple has truly rejected a Temple sealing.

So official LDS teaching manuals are not guaranteed to be the truth? Why use them if they do not officially teach the truth of the Mormon faith?

This is off-topic of the OP.

 

[RebeccaJ]

So the current God the Father will have “Gods” worshiping him and those “Gods” in turn will have spirit children who need bodies, enter mortality and worship their God the Father?

Eternal regression of gods…not all Mormons believe this but it is acceptable to be a Mormon and believe this.

On the Mormon forums, they make a distinction between internet Mormons and not. Those on the internet eschew this explained belief as “folk doctrine” while their other designated counterparts, not on the Internet, accept the “folk doctrine” because it is what has been taught to them by their church.

Pretty much there is leeway in Mormonism, within a framework of obedience to current leaders, to believe a wide and conflicting range of teachings, among individuals. It took me years to figure that out. Lol. But Mormons call this personal revelation. It is why the participating Mormons here, not only explain things differently one to the other, but also why there is often conflict between individual Mormons explaining what Mormon belief is, and what the Mormon church teaches now or has taught previously.

Anecdotally, I’ve observed that converts to Mormonism from Christianity most often reject regression of Gods and remain in the Christian doctrine of one God. I don’t know how they reconcile this to explicit Mormon scripture regarding plurality of gods, but they’ve worked it out in their own way I guess.

 

[lax16]

You’re judging whether or not a couple has truly rejected a Temple sealing.

What post did I judge a Mormon couple in?
Are you referring to the post where I showed an LDS president judging a married couple that died after not being sealed in the temple?

This is off-topic of the OP.

Mormon beliefs about eternal marriage and becoming gods ad goddessses, the topic if the OP, is taught to young girls and women via LDS manuals. You are trying to avoid answering the question regarding whether or not these manuals teach official Mormon doctrine.

 

[lax16]

Re temple marriage: what counts as “rejection” is for God to declare, as He is the Judge. It is not our place to judge.

I agree that it is not our place to judge. However, the Mormons do teach celestial marriage is necessary for the highest level of heaven.

from the LDS manual for young women about eternal marriage:

Section 131
Instructions by Joseph Smith the Prophet, given at Ramus, Illinois, May 16 and 17, 1843.
1–4, Celestial marriage is essential to exaltation in the highest heaven; 5–6, How men are sealed up unto eternal life is explained; 7–8, All spirit is matter.

1In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

2And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

3And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

4He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

5(May 17th, 1843.) The more sure word of prophecy means a man’s knowing that he is sealed up unto eternal life, by revelation and the spirit of prophecy, through the power of the Holy Priesthood.

6It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.

 

[openmind77]

…
Now, who is this advailable to? Every individual whom accepts God’s True Gospel, male or female, whether that acceptance comes in this life or the next. …

What do you mean this life or ‘next’ - do Mormons believe in reincarnation? Where is the next life? - Christians believe that after death you either go to hell, purgatory or heaven, what do mormons believe that they can accept God’s True Gospel in the ‘next’ life.

 

[Horton]

What do you mean this life or ‘next’ - do Mormons believe in reincarnation? Where is the next life? - Christians believe that after death you either go to hell, purgatory or heaven, what do mormons believe that they can accept God’s True Gospel in the ‘next’ life.

This is my take on it and just my opinion. The LDS church is a relatively new church. It has very stern doctrines about who gets to one of the three levels of heaven, on how one gets to heaven (sealing and eternal families), and what role one has upon reaching whatever level of heaven. Because it is (was?) so absolute new converts questioned, “hey what about my great uncle? He was a good guy but never heard of the LDS. Isn’t he going to be in my heaven?”

So the LDS were stuck with a theology that excluded non LDS but could also turn away new converts because they didn’t want to go to a heaven with grandpa. So out comes a revelation from God to fix this little problem. Baptism and sealing of the dead. “But hey great uncle Damien is a Catholic Saint? How does this work?” No problem, we, the LDS, know great uncle Damien didn’t really want to be a Catholic priest, didn’t really want to be a celibate non-married priest so we’ll just marry him off to some gal named Marie. Poor guy was so misguided by that horrible Catholic church and their 2000+ theology, he must have really wanted to be a latter day saint, not a Catholic saint.

Or something like that.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I always have seen it as a reaction to the death of Joseph Smith’s brother Alvin, whom he was very close to and was devastated by his death. Mormon cosmogony essentially erases death, as the finality of ones life. For LDS the earthly life just continues on as is, but increased in everything that Smith viewed as desirable. Familial relations
(families at forever), personal power (becoming a god in every sense), and intimate relationships with many women (plural wife-goddesses and procreating spirit children).He wanted his beloved dead to experience the same and so proxy work for them, and a life after death where the dead can learn his views, was necessary to fulfill his personal desires for the next life.

Of course the RLDS view regarding plural wives as an invention by Brigham Young.

 

[lax16]

I always have seen it as a reaction to the death of Joseph Smith’s brother Alvin, whom he was very close to and was devastated by his death. Mormon cosmogony essentially erases death, as the finality of ones life. For LDS the earthly life just continues on as is, but increased in everything that Smith viewed as desirable. Familial relations
(families at forever), personal power (becoming a god in every sense), and intimate relationships with many women (plural wife-goddesses and procreating spirit children).He wanted his beloved dead to experience the same and so proxy work for them, and a life after death where the dead can learn his views, was necessary to fulfill his personal desires for the next life.

Of course the RLDS view regarding plural wives as an invention by Brigham Young.

That’s a very interesting observation. I think, if I am not mistaken, that JS came up with the idea of baptism of the dead in a similar fashion. A young boy died and his mother was very distraught because he had not been baptized. JS had the idea if baptizing him after his death as a solution to her concern.

I guess he considered it revelation from God?

 

[gazelam]

That’s a very interesting observation. I think, if I am not mistaken, that JS came up with the idea of baptism of the dead in a similar fashion. A young boy died and his mother was very distraught because he had not been baptized. JS had the idea if baptizing him after his death as a solution to her concern.

I guess he considered it revelation from God?

Great point! Joseph Smith would never have read 1 Corinthians 15:29 which states:

Otherwise, what will people accomplish by having themselves baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they having themselves baptized for them?

Joseph Smith never would have pondered on this verse and wondered why it’s in the Bible, yet not practiced by any Christian denomination at the time. Nope! Certainly not Joseph Smith!

 

[lax16]

Great point! Joseph Smith would never have read 1 Corinthians 15:29 which states:

Otherwise, what will people accomplish by having themselves baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they having themselves baptized for them?

Joseph Smith never would have pondered on this verse and wondered why it’s in the Bible, yet not practiced by any Christian denomination at the time. Nope! Certainly not Joseph Smith!

Who is Paul referring to as they?

What different Christian denominations existed at the time?

 

[Horton]

Great point! Joseph Smith would never have read 1 Corinthians 15:29 which states:

Otherwise, what will people accomplish by having themselves baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they having themselves baptized for them?

Joseph Smith never would have pondered on this verse and wondered why it’s in the Bible, yet not practiced by any Christian denomination at the time. Nope! Certainly not Joseph Smith!

So are you saying the proxy temple baptisms and sealings are not part of LDS theology? That JS would have taken this verse literally and seen there isn’t any value in baptism for the dead?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Great point! Joseph Smith would never have read 1 Corinthians 15:29 which states:

Otherwise, what will people accomplish by having themselves baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they having themselves baptized for them?

Joseph Smith never would have pondered on this verse and wondered why it’s in the Bible, yet not practiced by any Christian denomination at the time. Nope! Certainly not Joseph Smith!

There is not further detail nor necessarily approval regarding this practice. Paul was preaching on the resurrection of Jesus, which implies first that the soul is immortal. There being the belief among some Jewish sects that the soul ceased to exist at death. Paul is making a point in the belief on an immortal soul. He’s not teaching people to baptize for the dead. “They” could be any sect who believed in an immortal soul.

Beyond that, in the context of the whole of the teachings of the Apostles. We believe Jesus died, descended into hell and on the third day rose again. Jesus descent into hell was to liberate the righteous souls who were redeemed by his death. They were liberated to heaven, never having been baptized, as they lived before the old covenant or during the old covenant. Baptism was instituted by Christ, who is the New and Everlastng Covenant. None were baptized into Christ before He died and rose. Yet He liberated the righteous souls of the dead, into heaven.

To believe these souls were liberated to a second waiting point before heaven, implies that Jesus did not have the power or authority to judge any into heaven when he descended into hell.

 

[lax16]

There is not further detail nor necessarily approval regarding this practice. Paul was preaching on the resurrection of Jesus, which implies first that the soul is immortal. There being the belief among some Jewish sects that the soul ceased to exist at death. Paul is making a point in the belief on an immortal soul. He’s not teaching people to baptize for the dead. “They” could be any sect who believed in an immortal soul.

Beyond that, in the context of the whole of the teachings of the Apostles. We believe Jesus died, descended into hell and on the third day rose again. Jesus descent into hell was to liberate the righteous souls who were redeemed by his death. They were liberated to heaven, never having been baptized, as they lived before the old covenant or during the old covenant. Baptism was instituted by Christ, who is the New and Everlastng Covenant. None were baptized into Christ before He died and rose. Yet He liberated the righteous souls of the dead, into heaven.

To believe these souls were liberated to a second waiting point before heaven, implies that Jesus did not have the power or authority to judge any into heaven when he descended into hell.

Also, wouldn’t Paul have said “we” instead of “they” if it was a Christian practice?

 

[kozlosap]

What about Mormon women that are not married but are very nice people? What happens to them?

What about the Mormon couples I know that the husband was abusive after a temple marriage? What happens to the women in those situations?

When I was thirty (30) and not married, about 35 years ago, I was told by an acquaintance who was in the Bishopry that I would most likely be a handmaiden for a worthy couple who had attained their perfect planet. Here I was, teaching extremely disabled kids, Special Olympic coach and just buried both my Mom and Dad in the space of 18 months. I really “lost it” and let that poor ignorant Mormon have a piece of my big C Catholic mind, including throwing out the FACT that I don’t believe members of the LDS are real Christians since they are not Trinitarian. I regret being a jerk now, but not then. I made it quite clear to my cousin whom fell in love with a missionary, converted and has been LDS for 30 years that I am not to be baptized into their group after I die or I will haunt their private temple with Catholic propaganda that Joseph Smith would not understand!. Ok, ok, off of my soapbox. Have a blessed Palm Sunday everyone.

 

[NM505StKate]

Pardon me, but how do you say that “as well as just reading the Book of Mormon”? The Book of Mormon is not a history book, so that’s not really applicable. As to study of LDS theology, I would point to the primary source (the actual book) as being inherently more accurate than a secondary source. Similarly, I would not tell anyone fresh studying Catholicism to read “Catholicism for Dummies” as being just-as-good as reading the Bible or CCC.

You misunderstand. David Michaels first read the Book of Mormon to read it. He moved on to the Pearl of Great Price and is now working through the Doc and Convenants. Bryce is doing the history of the church. Give both podcasts a listen.

 

[jane_doe]

You misunderstand. David Michaels first read the Book of Mormon to read it. He moved on to the Pearl of Great Price and is now working through the Doc and Convenants. Bryce is doing the history of the church. Give both podcasts a listen.

How is that a misunderstanding? You’re reading a secondary source about someone’s belief, and not the primary source. It doesn’t matter if the person who wrote the secondary source read the primary source.

 

[adamhovey1988]

When I was thirty (30) and not married, about 35 years ago, I was told by an acquaintance who was in the Bishopry that I would most likely be a handmaiden for a worthy couple who had attained their perfect planet. Here I was, teaching extremely disabled kids, Special Olympic coach and just buried both my Mom and Dad in the space of 18 months. I really “lost it” and let that poor ignorant Mormon have a piece of my big C Catholic mind, including throwing out the FACT that I don’t believe members of the LDS are real Christians since they are not Trinitarian. I regret being a jerk now, but not then. I made it quite clear to my cousin whom fell in love with a missionary, converted and has been LDS for 30 years that I am not to be baptized into their group after I die or I will haunt their private temple with Catholic propaganda that Joseph Smith would not understand!. Ok, ok, off of my soapbox. Have a blessed Palm Sunday everyone.

Okay I was trying to put a smile on this but it’s not working very well anyway that was funny made me laugh