LDS and becoming gods

[mtolympus]

LDS teach that the Celestial Kingdom is only available to married/sealed Mormons, right?

Wrong!

So, single women cannot reach the Celestial Kingdom according to Mormon belief.

No. That is not correct. Baptism is required to enter the Celestial Kingdom (John 3:5), however marriage is not required. Celestial marriage is required for exhaltation in the Celestial Kingdom, which is the highest level. However, some may not want to be married at all. They can still live with God in the Celestial Kingdom.

 

[twopekinguys]

Wrong!

No. That is not correct. Baptism is required to enter the Celestial Kingdom (John 3:5), however marriage is not required. Celestial marriage is required for exhaltation in the Celestial Kingdom, which is the highest level. However, some may not want to be married at all. They can still live with God in the Celestial Kingdom.

Just so we are clear on terminology and thought here, are you saying a person who reaches exhaltation in the Celestial kingdom becomes a god? i.e. being sealed/married, and being in the Celestial Kingdom.

 

[Thomas_Ruin]

I thought LDS belief is that only men could become a god and rule over another world. Also a man can have as many spiritual wives as possible so he may populate that world. Women cannot become a god?

 

[mtolympus]

Just so we are clear on terminology and thought here, are you saying a person who reaches exhaltation in the Celestial kingdom becomes a god? i.e. being sealed/married, and being in the Celestial Kingdom.

I would just say that we should not under estimate the blessings available from God to his children.

“Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers in the divine nature.” (2 Peter 1:4)

 

[KEP1983]

Wrong!

No. That is not correct. Baptism is required to enter the Celestial Kingdom (John 3:5), however marriage is not required. Celestial marriage is required for exhaltation in the Celestial Kingdom, which is the highest level. However, some may not want to be married at all. They can still live with God in the Celestial Kingdom.

I’m sorry, but this is misleading. The LDS absolutely teach that you have to be married to become a god in the celestial kingdom. If you’re not married in this life you’ll be sealed to someone else.

From the April 20, 2008 edition of the Salt Lake Tribune:

“Though the LDS Church had disavowed polygamy, it is still enshrined in Mormon scripture (Doctrine & Covenants 132) and some believe it will one day be re-established, if not on Earth, at least in heaven. In his quasi-official 1966 book Mormon Doctrine, which remains in print,*** the late LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie*** wrote that ‘the holy practice will commence again after the Second Coming and the ushering in of the millennium.’ And by policy,** men can be ‘sealed’ for eternity in LDS temple rites to more than one wife, though women are permitted only a single sealing. **Three of the church’s current apostles, for example, were widowed and remarried. Each will have two wives in the eternities”

You then say that some people may not want to be married at all. But Spencer W Kimball said “Honorable, happy, and successful marriage is surely the principal goal of every normal person. One who would purposely or neglectfully avoid its serious implications is not only not normal but is frustrating his own program.”

"Every person should want to be married. There are some who might not be able to. But every person should want to be married because that is what God in heaven planned for us” (Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 291).

He then says that marriage is essential to be exalted into Celestial Kingdom.

“Celestial marriage is essential to exaltation. In order to obtain the highest degree in the celestial kingdom, a man and a woman must enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage (see D&C 131:2–3).”

lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/chapter-28-celestial-marriage?lang=eng

" Celestial marriage and a continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods; 21–25… Laws governing plural marriage are set forth."

lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.20?lang=eng

Again, this is all from the official LDS site.

 

[KEP1983]

I would just say that we should not under estimate the blessings available from God to his children.

“Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers in the divine nature.” (2 Peter 1:4)

Yup. Look up the definition of “partake.” It doesn’t mean “to become exactly the same as and equal to.” It means “to participate in.” Human beings do not naturally participate in the divine nature. The Bible says we are by nature children of wrath, but that we become ADOPTED as children of God. We become partakers of the divine nature when we receive the Holy Spirit, which is a gift that is given to us, not something that we have naturally.

The Bible is very clear that there is only one God, and there have been no gods before Him, and there will be no gods after Him:

Isaiah 45:5 “I am the Lord, and there is no other;
apart from me there is no God.”

Isaiah 43:10 “Before me no god was formed, nor will there be any after me.”

 

[twopekinguys]

I would just say that we should not under estimate the blessings available from God to his children.

“Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers in the divine nature.” (2 Peter 1:4)

Not really answering the question, or clarifying your statement. Try again.

 

[mtolympus]

Yup. Look up the definition of “partake.” It doesn’t mean “to become exactly the same as and equal to.” It means “to participate in.” Human beings do not naturally participate in the divine nature. The Bible says we are by nature children of wrath, but that we become ADOPTED as children of God. We become partakers of the divine nature when we receive the Holy Spirit, which is a gift that is given to us, not something that we have naturally."

The Bible is very clear that there is only one God, and there have been no gods before Him, and there will be no gods after Him:

Isaiah 45:5 “I am the Lord, and there is no other;
apart from me there is no God.”

Isaiah 43:10 “Before me no god was formed, nor will there be any after me.”

I agree with you that we become partakers in the divine nature by being adopted children of God through Christ. I also agree there is one eternal God.(The only thing I don’t agree with, is where you said that the Bible is very clear.)

The following scripture in Psalms seems to contradict both of your points, (even though I believe both of your points are completely true!) When the Psalmist referred to the council in heaven he said, “God arises in the divine assembly; he judges in the midst of the gods” (Psalms 82:1), when he rebuked the wicked judges (Psalms 82:2-5). He then told them: “Ye are gods; all of you are sons of the Most High. Yet like men you shall die, and fall like any prince”. (Ps. 82:6-7) an apparent reference to the war in heaven and fall of Lucifer.

 

[mtolympus]

Not really answering the question, or clarifying your statement. Try again.

My answer may not have been what you wanted me to say, but I believe it was very clear.

 

[mtolympus]

Who is Paul referring to as they?

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? (1 Cor 15:29)

“They” are Christians who believed in the resurrection and therefore were being baptized for the dead. Paul used them as an example to show the truthfulness of the resurrection. Paul certainly would not use a false practice to demonstrate the truthfulness of the resurrection!

 

[Thomas_Ruin]

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? (1 Cor 15:29)

“They” are Christians who believed in the resurrection and therefore were being baptized for the dead. Paul used them as an example to show the truthfulness of the resurrection. Paul certainly would not use a false practice to demonstrate the truthfulness of the resurrection!

Here’s a breakdown:

The Greek phrase rendered by the King James Version as “for the dead” is huper ton nekron. This phrase is as ambiguous in Greek as it is in English. The preposition huper has a wide semantic range and can indicate “for the sake of,” “on behalf of,” “over,” “beyond,” or “more than.” Like the English preposition “for,” it does not have a single meaning and does not require the Mormon idea of being baptized in place of the dead. Such a reading would be unlikely given the more plausible interpretations available, and even if huper were taken to mean “in the place of,” it doesn’t mean Paul endorses the practice.

First Corinthians 15 is a key chapter for Paul’s teaching on the resurrection of the body. He makes no statement on baptism for dead persons except to note that some unnamed “they” practice it. While the rest of his teaching in chapter fifteen refers to “we,” his Christian followers, “they” are not further identified. Who this group was may not be known with certitude today, but there are some reasonable interpretations:

1. Some commentators assume this verse refers to the practice of giving newly baptized children the names of deceased non-Christian relatives, with the hope that the dead might somehow share in the Lord’s mercy.

1. Another interpretation envisions the baptism of catechumens who have witnessed the persecution and martyrdom of their Christian predecessors. With their belief that the dead do rise, the Christian candidates come forward boldly and accept both the faith and its consequences.

1. A related view holds that the group consists of those baptized in connection with a dead Christian loved one. In the first century, many families were split religiously, as only one or two members may have converted to Christianity. When it came time for these new Christians to die, they no doubt exhorted their non-Christian family members to consider the Christian faith and to embrace it so that they could be together in the next world. After the deaths of their Christian loved ones, many family members no doubt did investigate the Christian faith and were baptized so that they could be reunited with their loved ones in the afterlife. At the time, many pagans had at best an unclear idea of what the afterlife was like, and there were a large number of sects promising immortality to those who were willing to undergo their initiation rituals. A pagan husband mourning the death of his Christian wife might thus have an unclear idea of what her religion was all about, but still have it fixed in his mind: “If I want to be with her again, I need to become a Christian, like she was, so I can go where Christians go in the afterlife.” This, then, could prompt him to investigate Christianity, learn its teachings about the afterlife and the resurrection, and embrace faith in Christ, receiving Christian baptism for the sake of being united with his dead loved one. The same is true, by extension, for other family relations as well, such as parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren. Even today deathbed exhortations to live the Christian life are not uncommon. People still resolve to live as Christians in order to please dead loved ones, to honor their memories, and to be united with them in the next life. The difference is that, today, most of those being exhorted have already been baptized.

1. Others advance the possibility that Paul was referring to the practice of a heretical cult that existed in Corinth. On this theory, Paul was not endorsing the practice of the group, but merely citing it to emphasize the importance of the resurrection. Rather, his point was: If even heterodox Christians have a practice that makes no sense if there is no resurrection of the dead, how much more, then, should we orthodox Catholics believe in and hope for the resurrection of the dead.

There is no other evidence in the Bible or in the early Church Fathers’ writings of baptism being practiced on the living in place of the dead. Some Mormon writers assert that some Christian commentators have discussed the possibility of a kind of “baptism for the dead” among some in the Corinthian community in Paul’s time. But these commentators do not suggest that the practice was accepted or mainstream. Given the silence of Scripture and tradition, we conclude rightly when we see this behavior as another aberration within a community of believers already soundly scolded by Paul for its lack of charity, its factionalism, its immorality, its abuse of the Eucharist, and other matters.

Although we have no way of knowing for sure who was engaging in this practice, it is certain that Paul was not referring to orthodox Christians baptizing the dead. Catholic and Protestant scholars agree on that.
catholic.com/tracts/mormonisms-baptism-for-the-dead

 

[mtolympus]

Here’s a breakdown:

“Although we have no way of knowing for sure who was engaging in this practice, it is certain that Paul was not referring to orthodox Christians baptizing the dead. Catholic and Protestant scholars agree on that.”

I guess that is why only Latter-day Saints build temples

 

[zaffiroborant]

I guess that is why only Latter-day Saints build temples

Living Mormons are not baptized in the temple, why must the dead be baptized in the temple?

 

[Thomas_Ruin]

I guess that is why only Latter-day Saints build temples

A lot of organizations have temples. Hindus, Masons, etc.

But we digress. Let’s get back on topic. I do have a question.

Why must a man have many wives in the celestial kingdom if he wants to be a god? Why must he have one wife? OK, sorry, that is two questions, not one

 

[Stephen168]

I guess that is why only Latter-day Saints build temples

Yes, to engage in a ritual never practice by Christians. Another invention not a restoration.

 

[gazelam]

A lot of organizations have temples. Hindus, Masons, etc.

But we digress. Let’s get back on topic. I do have a question.

Why must a man have many wives in the celestial kingdom if he wants to be a god? Why must he have one wife? OK, sorry, that is two questions, not one

Question #1. He doesn’t, but he does need to have a wife to inherit Eternal Life.

Question #2. I don’t have time to put together a good answer for this, but wanted to answer question 1.

 

[Marie5890]

A lot of organizations have temples. Hindus, Masons, etc.

But we digress. Let’s get back on topic. I do have a question.

Why must a man have many wives in the celestial kingdom if he wants to be a god? Why must he have one wife? OK, sorry, that is two questions, not one

Buddhists, too.

Infact, when Mother Angelica was down in Bogota, the Child Jesus appeared to her and told her to build Him a temple.

So she did. It’s the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament.

 

[Thomas_Ruin]

Question #1. He doesn’t, but he does need to have a wife to inherit Eternal Life.

Question #2. I don’t have time to put together a good answer for this, but wanted to answer question 1.

This is probably a weird conclusion, but it looks like, if the LDS believe that when a man becomes a god, he has to create thousands or millions of spirit children to populate a world that he will be a god over, then he has to have hundreds or thousands of wives to copulate with to have these spirit children. The man creates the world, and all that goes with it and the wife is the mother of all the spirit children. So polygamy is pretty much mandatory.

 

[Marie5890]

This is probably a weird conclusion, but it looks like, if the LDS believe that when a man becomes a god, he has to create thousands or millions of spirit children to populate a world that he will be a god over, then he has to have hundreds or thousands of wives to copulate with to have these spirit children. The man creates the world, and all that goes with it and the wife is the mother of all the spirit children. So polygamy is pretty much mandatory.

I don’t think Mormons meditate on the details about becoming gods and goddesses of their own worlds, and having spirit children.

I think they have gotten away from focusing on those doctrines, though they do exist.

 

[iepuras]

I don’t think Mormons meditate on the details about becoming gods and goddesses of their own worlds, and having spirit children.

I think they have gotten away from focusing on those doctrines, though they do exist.

Definitely. It certainly is a difficult doctrine for LDS women to contemplate. I know I was only happy as a Mormon when I didn’t think about such things. I mean, what woman wants to look forward to sharing her husband in the celestial kingdom?