The righteous have many promises. The most surpassing of them all is a five-word infinity: All That The Father Hath. Spend some time with this concept and you begin to see why it so torments the sectarians. What God has is merely eternity, space, time, worlds without end. To fulfill that promise one must either unrighteously diminish God or blasphemously exalt man, and . . .
Yep, It’s the latter.
And yes, we’ve thought through all the logical consequences of that position, and yes, we find it just as incomprehensible as you do. But now do you see why it’s so much fun to be a Mormon?
Such conversations are useless, because they elicit responses based on inexpressible convictions, borne deep in most of God’s children. Most people have always believed, desperately, in the distance between Him and us, unsure how to explain their insistence on the point. The lesson of Babel has always been misread in this way.
In truth, the people were cursed and their language confounded not because they wanted to be like God, but because they thought they could do so easily. It is good to attempt entry to his palace, but only via the strait gate and narrow way; those who try by the stairs of some high-rising ziggurat would hate the place even if they got there. The truth is that the distance between myself and divinity is simply the width of my unwillingness to take the Lord’s road there.
But what is waiting for us there in God’s kingdom? “Thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths. . . ” Someone today in Sunday School surmised that this meant a rulership over some part of God’s great universe. I appreciate his metaphor, drawing from the common meaning of ‘hath’ as speaking of possessions, but I think it misses the point. If we think of All That The Father Hath in terms of the space and kingdoms he possesses, we can never have it all. You and I and every other saint will take divided portions of his possession; my portion, even though an infinite fraction of His larger infinity, will still not be everything he hath. Surely, the promise must be speaking of something else.
What is it that the Father hath, that he can give to each of us, wholly? Who He is. The state of His Being is the key to all his thrones and principalities and unspeakable glories. What is His name? I Am. With this name He communicates that He is the fulness of being, complete in present tense existence beyond our imagination. This is All That The Father Hath, and it is our birthright.
The most valuable commodity in the universe is God’s perfection. If we attain it, we attain everything else. All other glories will automatically attend us, and kindgoms will become ours that were never His. Before He had all glory and power, He had His nature- He was potential fulfilled, He was virtue incarnate, He Was. His Being is what makes Him God. And if Being is the pearl of greatest worth, Becoming is the most lucrative endeavor.
Hence the road on which we presently travel; A dull path full of dust and achy complaints. This is the right road to Heaven, because this road will force us to deserve it by the time we get there.
If the greatest possible blessing was literally a piece of property or a fiefdom in some corner of the universe, no matter how vast, He could hand it to us today, no questions asked. His own power and glory could sponsor us, and our authority grow from His. How hard can it be for God to give us things, even infinite things, and support us in maintaining them?
But All That The Father Hath is not a possession or a place, it is simply the state of Being what He is. And this cannot be given, even by the Great I Am. The one thing the Great Creator cannot create by himself is a Being equal to himself. To gain the ultimate blessing, we must allow ourselves to Become; All That The Father Hath goes to those who are All That the Father Is. There is no other way.
Update: For some better but slightly different expressions of the above ideas see the following:
Dallin H. Oaks, The Challenge to Become, October 2000 General Conference
Jim Faulconer Comment, here
Inspiringly beautiful! It IS so much fun to be a Mormon!
The gulf is immense. It’s just that God can cross it. Those who hold otherwise are defying God and impugning his power so they can hold on to their littleness.
I agree Ryan.
It is inspiring, so I hate to be a party pooper…It is just that these conclusions are not based in revelation. They are rooted in what now is heresy. I do not see anywhere where Joseph Smith taught that Exaltation was to be all that the Father is. We often take his King Follet discourse as proof, but a careful reading defies such conclusions. On the other hand, there is a tremendous amount of historical data that suggest that exaltation is high placement in the grand government of God.
Ryan,
Thanks for this explanation of amazing potential God has for us. For me, the “fun” of being LDS is the excitement I feel as I experience the changes within me while I move, and help others to move, along this path. Although it’s difficult, I (quibbling coming) don’t sense — anymore — that it’s dull and full of complaints.
(2) Adam,
Those who hold otherwise are defying God and impugning his power so they can hold on to their littleness. …as do those who hold back!
“…if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is […] good […], for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my funderstanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.” (Al 32:28)
I almost mentioned your take on this in my earlier comment, J. I figured I would let you come and do it yourself instead.
What I was going to say then was that while I fully agree with Ryan’s view, I have come to realize that it is “a” Mormon theological view and not necessarily “the” Mormon view on the subject — even if it is the most popular view on the subject. It does admittedly bring up other sticky questions like grace vs. works, progression between kingdoms, etc.
Please, expand, J., and Geoff. What are the grace and works issues at play here? Incidentally, J., while I can’t say for sure, I feel confident that my view is that of the vast majority of mainstream Mormons. I know that doesn’t make us right, but I feel comfortable standing pat until proven wrong.
Philosophically, I’d be interested in any argument explaining how we can have all that the Father has without becoming beings of near-equal glory.
I think the command that we be “perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect” adds to the argument that perfection is being as God is. It doesn’t say “be perfect, but a little less perfect than God.” Anything short of perfection is not perfection.
Ryan,
Briefly, the grace vs. works issue is the question of how we become all that the Father is. Do we need to continue repenting (aka changing through our own correct choices) through the eternities to come in order to become like the Father in character or does the atonement do our repenting/changing for us? See my recent a my post on the subject title “Come on and take a free ride“. I link to my post disagreeing with the Parable of the Bicycle there too. If we can’t take a free ride to becoming like God in nature then it is only logical that it will take much more time than this probation to achieve that goal. That is where the question of progression between kingdoms comes in. That seems to be required to provide sufficient time for this process. See my “Progression between kingdoms” and “Planet of the Terrestrials” posts for more on that.
Roger. Some folks will say that Christ meant ‘be ye therefore perfect [in your sphere] even as I [am in my sphere] or our Father in Heaven is perfect [in his sphere]’ but I think that’s ultimately a crabbed interpretation, coming as the scripture does at the end of a sermon in which Christ has called on everyone to be filled with superhuman charity, be pure in thought, and, simultaneously, exceed the Pharisees in observing the punctilios of righteousness.
Geoff J.,
You ask interesting questions but I don’t see that the different views on exaltation make a difference to those questions. I also don’t see that long progress post-probation requires progression between kingdoms. Seems to me that folks could be classified perfectly well into kingdoms according to their eventual outcomes, just as kids capable of graduating from Harvard usually don’t have to go to U. Mass. first and then work up to it.
Ditto Adam.
Adam (and agreeing Ryan)
Hmmm. Sounds suspiciously like a variation on predestination to me (yet another sticky theological subject, especially when you thrown in the foreknowldege of God (or not) debate). If that is not what you mean please elaborate.
Why? If we are to become all that the Father is (not just get what he has) isn’t the next logical question “how do we do that?” That question leads directly to the grace vs. works issue.
Geoff, all I’m saying is that “All that my Father hath,” is only promised to those who achieve the highest order of righteousness and are taken into the Celestial Kingdom (most likely the highest realm therein). Thus, for those of us who make it there, there’s no necessity of advancing between kingdoms to become like God is.
As for the Grace and Works problem, like Adam, I think it’s interesting to consider by what power we advance toward God in the eternities, but I don’t know what bearing it has on the question of whether we do so or not (the argument against Brother Stapley). For myself, I don’t have any reason to believe that eternal progression is any different from mortal progression– a mixture in which the Savior’s grace lifts me once I can satisfy his minimal threshold requirements. I expect I’ll be working on the minimal threshold requirements, and their sequelae, for many eternities to come.
Geoff Johnston,
Every Mormon view on exaltation thinks we are getting to some state much beyond our current one. Thus, every Mormon view of exaltation has to say ‘how’ and discuss grace v. works. It may be that different views of exaltation compel one to have a different view of grace v. works, but I need to see it before I believe it.
As for your stuff on post-Judgment Day progression, I’ll avoid that unless Ryan Bell indicates he doesn’t mind a threadjack.
I personally believe in progression between kingdoms and not just because Talmage included it in his first printing of the Articles of Faith. It seems logical that God, wnting us each to become like Him, would not limit our potential if we came to our senses and worked out our salvation. A loving Father, in my opinion, would not say to his child, “you will never have suffered long enough. Too bad.” The joy of eternal progression is that our progression is eternal. Not limited to this life. Why would we bother sealing EVERYBODY we can if there was not the eventual potential for those individuals to progress into their eternal glory. I believe that is what the parable of the laborers is really about. The morning is this earth life, the afternoon, post mortal, the evening is resurrection. All paid with the same potential for exaltation – our burden is to realize that we may be the individual griping that we did more work and still got paid the same as those thatr seemingly did less. Also – the parable of the prodigal son would be lost if our Heavenly Father didn’t rejoice when we repented – even if after the resurrection. How would that parable look – the the son returned and dad said, “go away – you had your chance.” Some of us may like that scenario, but I don’t feel it adds to our ability to become as God. We need to also be ever forgiving.
Gilgamesh, two points:
1. See my comment above. For those that land originally in the Celestial Kingdom, God-like attainments do not necessitate advancing between kingdoms.
2. God wants us to succeed here too. But he can’t push us beyond what we are willing to accept for ourselves. If I am wicked here, he may want for me to end up in the Celestial Kingdom, but according to most readings of Mormon doctrine, he can’t. Why can’t it be the same in the hereafter– that he’d love to see us progress between kingdoms, but hasn’t the power to make it happen? (not saying I have evidence supporting this, just that it’s a possible alternative to the scenario Gilgamesh sees as necessarily following from God’s infinite love.)
Adam, threadjack away.
Ryan,
The problem is in the post you talk about that we need to be just as the Father is in order to have all that the Father has. I agree with that. But then in your last comment you imply that everyone that achieves a certain reward in the Celestial kingdom absolutely will receive all that the Father hath (and thus absolutely will become just as the Father is). The problem with that is that if we retain our agency then there are no absolutes. If, as you suggest (and I agree) our progression there will be very much like ours here then how can we say that we might not move backwards there too? There is opposition in all things after all.
In other words, unless we lose our agency after this life, there is no absolute guarantee that any of us will become as the Father is until we are as the Father is no matter what “kingdom†we attain. That concept is closely related to the idea of progression between kingdoms and that is why I said focusing on becoming what the Father is brings up other sticky questions.
Adam,
It is true that grace vs. works comes up with any variation on exaltation. However, it is a great deal harder to argue against works when we insist that we must become as the Father is rather than just get to share what he has. It is easy to imagine God sharing what he has as a free gift. It seems impossible to become as he is as a free gift though. We can only become as he is through self effort and repentance (unless he compels us — something that is not acceptable in Mormon doctrine.)
I feel confident that my view is that of the vast majority of mainstream Mormons. I know that doesn’t make us right, but I feel comfortable standing pat until proven wrong.
Which is a perfectly asseptable position. And I don’t know that anyone will prove anyone wrong untill a greater knowledge is revealed. But, just about every shread of non-Adam-God information we have stears away from Man-God doctrine. Of course most of this evidence relates to the holiest ordinances of the Temple, so we are careful in our discourse. Joseph Smith, however, was pretty fast and loose in his talk, all of which points to a different progression than what is corrently popular and obviously was taken as support for Adam-God.
Very good Ryan. I quite agree.
But we LDS are not all the way alone on this. Do a google search on the words theosis, divinization or deification and see what comes up. No one says it quite as clearly and literally as we do but there are Christians that believe that “all that God has” includes his glory.
What about “as man is, God once was; as God is, man may become?” I don’t think it demeans God to think we will have all the attributes He has (although, as I’ve said many times, I don’t want the job). Truman Madsen taught once in a meeting I attended, “doesn’t it make sense that a loving father would want His children to be equal to Him? Why would He doom His children to be eternally inferior? Do you want your children to be less than you are…or God forbid, more?” Paraphrased?
He also made the point that perhaps God was once in special interest (I don’t know what they call it now), ie, divorced, etc. We all felt like such failures, I felt my spirit rise in hope at that talk and I’ve never forgotten it.
“It is true that grace vs. works comes up with any variation on exaltation. However, it is a great deal harder to argue against works when we insist that we must become as the Father is rather than just get to share what he has. It is easy to imagine God sharing what he has as a free gift. It seems impossible to become as he is as a free gift though. We can only become as he is through self effort and repentance (unless he compels us — something that is not acceptable in Mormon doctrine.)”
The problem with what you are saying, Geoff Johnston, is that NO ONE maintains that exaltation is simply a matter of obtaining all that the Father hath. Even those who think that we won’t become all that the Father is think we’ll become some of what he is. No one thinks we are entitled to thrones, powers, dominions just as we are. Which means that your grace-works statements apply to all Mormon views, not just ours.
On the narrow question of whether believing that our destiny is to become as the Father is entails a belief in progress between kingdoms:
Clearly not, unless one accepts that God and grace cannot transform us into celestial beings all in an instant at the Judgment. You appear to think that such a thing is impossible, but I know no scriptural or prophetic warrant for such a view. So having received a divine witness of the Church and of the scriptures does not compel a Saint to believe that God doesn’t transform us through grace, instantly, at the Judgment. You argue that such a belief is inconsistent with our view that God can’t force us to become a certain way. I agree that he can’t, but I don’t think someone who believed God transformed us at the Judgment Day would believe that God was forcing us. That person would probably believe that our mortal and spirit lives were one long process of choice that culminated in a final choice at the Judgment Day to accept celestial grace or terrestial grace or telestial grace and be transformed instantly into that sort of person. No force involved.
Now, as it happens, I do not personally believe that God transforms us instantly at the Judgment Day. The question then becomes, does (1) believing that our destiny is to become as the Father is and (2) believing that we do not become as the Father is at the Judgment Day, entail a belief in progress between kingdoms?
The answer to that is easy. No. Because, as you’ve pointed out, fairly standard Mormon views on foreknowledge (God has it) and free agency (it consists of freedom from external compulsion) explain how one could be slotted into a kingdom that one had not received the fulness of yet. Sure, if you think that God does not have adequate foreknowledge, at the judgment day and after a lifetime of our works, to know how we’ll ultimately turn out, then there will be progress and regress between kingdoms, because God is assigning us to kingdoms based not on what we’ll become but on what we are. A great many Mormons, however, reject this view of foreknowledge with a respectable warrant in the scriptures and the prophets.
Alternatively, if one believed that (a) celestial beings had free will and (b) that free will meant the absence of internal compulsion–in other words, that one can never set one’s character so hard in stone that it would be impossible to make certain choices–then of course regress between the kingdoms after the Judgment would be required because celestial beings could always choose to sin. With the additional assumption that terrestial and telestial beings also had free will then progress between the kingdoms would also be required.
But I reject either (a) or (b). If free will means that one’s character allows one to make any choice, then I do not believe that celestial beings have free will. If celestial beings have free will, then I do not believe that free will means that one’s character allows one to make any choice.
Dear Adam Greenwood,
Has anyone ever mentioned that your writing style is quite off-putting?
As for the discussion at hand…
First of all I think you are wrong when you say “No one thinks we are entitled to thrones, powers, dominions just as we are.” It depends on which “we” you are talking about, but there are those that apparently believe that once a mortal person has received the Second Annointing they will indeed be entitled to “thrones, powers, dominions” just as they are.
Second, I never claimed that the grace-works discussions apply only to the view that humankind could become all that the Father is. I did say that holding the opinion that we may become all that the Father is inevitably elicits a grace-works discussion. I believe that is not necessarily the case with the view that we may become only part of what the Father is.
By the way, I insist you (and only you) call me G
Love,
G
“I believe that is not necessarily the case with the view that we may become only part of what the Father is.”
I have no idea why. Rather than criticize my writing maybe you could try and explain your views.
Adam Greenwood,
I’m not sure if #23 was addressed to me, but I will respond anyway.
unless one accepts that God and grace cannot transform us into celestial beings all in an instant at the Judgment.
I believe God cannot transform us into Celestial beings in an instant. He can likely transform our bodies but he cannot transform our characters. I believe characters cannot be changed instantly or externally and that “Celestial” is a character description more than anything else.
You appear to think that such a thing is impossible, but I know no scriptural or prophetic warrant for such a view.
And I know of no scriptural support for the opposite view you describe.
Re: Foreknowledge – You are free to believe God has exhaustive foreknowledge and you are right that you are in good company in believing that. I happen to also be in good company in believing that it is logically impossible to exhaustively know the future act of free beings.
If free will means that one’s character allows one to make any choice, then I do not believe that celestial beings have free will. If celestial beings have free will, then I do not believe that free will means that one’s character allows one to make any choice.
I suppose we’ll have to disagree on this point as well. I happen to believe that the verses that describe the possibility of God ceasing to be God to be accurate.
G
Adam: Clearly not, unless one accepts that God and grace cannot transform us into celestial beings all in an instant at the Judgment. You appear to think that such a thing is impossible, but I know no scriptural or prophetic warrant for such a view
I actually think that Joseph said quite a few things along that way. I’ll try to find the quotes later.
But beyond that there is a bit of a logical problem. If God can transform anyone totally at any time, then it renders the whole point of mortality moot. Why have mortality at all? Clearly we don’t gain anything from it. So I think just on that theological ground it is wrong to assume God has the power to totally transform us.
I don’t think this necessarily has any bearing on the compatibilism issue, I should add.
While your later point about force is well made (perhaps God can only transform us if we willingly choose to be transformed) it still makes mortality particularly confusing. Couldn’t that choice have been made prior to mortality? (And indeed doesn’t our theology of Christ as God entail that he made it?)
It seems that even if we add the moral requirement of offering to be transformed that such a theology of full transformation is hard to reconcile to the rest of our doctrines.
With regards to rejecting God’s foreknowledge. I’m not sure that is provided by scripture in the least. Rather I think it comes out of an implication of pursuing a particular notion of free will as necessary for responsibility which many take to be necessary for a just judgment. I’m not in the least convinced by that of course. But clearly many do make that logic. But it tends to be an indirect argument and not something explicitly stated by scripture.
Geoff: I believe God cannot transform us into Celestial beings in an instant. He can likely transform our bodies but he cannot transform our characters.
Why do you make a divide between character and body? Isn’t the abundant evidence regarding the relationship between character and brain suggest such a divide is untenable? Perhaps there is something to our personality not entailed by our body (whether spiritual or physical). But it certainly isn’t clear what this would be. In any case it seems to require a lot of metaphysical assumptions regarding mind that are quite speculative to be resting a conclusion of this sort on.
Rather than criticize my writing maybe you could try and explain your views.
Forgive me — I thought I already had.
If one believes that we will never become all that the Father is, then it is logically possible to be freely given (through grace) all that He has while we use our earthly works to lead up to that gracious reward. As I mentioned, there are some Mormons that believe we can receive “thrones, powers, dominions” even as mortals. In that belief system one could short-circuit the idea that there is a requirement for further post-mortal works in order to receive exaltation (because they are sealed up unto it as mortals). For those that accept that version of exaltation there is no need for a grace-works discussion (particularly a post-mortal grace works discussion).
Perhaps I should have clarified that the idea of becoming all that the Father is necessarily elicits topic of whether works are required after this life in order to acheive that or not. The entire idea of self-change or instantly being changed by God is the grace-works debate after all. As your comment #23 showed, we cannot avoid that discussion if we are talking about changing our characters to match God’s character. That was my original contention.
G
While I think those verses are pretty clearly setting up one of those arguments like those in geometry where you prove something is true by assuming the opposite and arriving at an absurd result. The absurd result being, contra D&C 3, that God could cease to be God.
I grant you that folks have different ideas about foreknowledge. I also grant you that the scriptures and the prophets don’t clarify whether or not we’re transformed all at once or not. Like you, I don’t think we are. The point is that someone can think we are transformed all at once, just as someone can believe in foreknowledge. And if they do, then they can also believe that exaltation means being all that the Father is without also believing in progression between the kingdoms. Contra your comment #9.
Clark: Why do you make a divide between character and body?
You are right. I shouldn’t have.
Geoff: If one believes that we will never become all that the Father is, then it is logically possible to be freely given (through grace) all that He has while we use our earthly works to lead up to that gracious reward.
Doesn’t this assume that having entails being? Why can’t we distinguish them? A person with a 180 IQ is someone different from a person with a 80 IQ. Yet both may have a computer and presumably those differences in what they are entails different capabilities.
I think the assumption that having entails being is misplaced. That’s not to say we might be become exactly as the Father. But I think those who dispute this, like Blake Ostler, certainly have a point.
I think many Mormons going back at least to B. H. Roberts have an implicit dualism in their thought which I’m not sure is justified by the scriptures and certainly not by 19th century thought. That is, I think we ought be careful assuming we have our body rather than are our body. (Recognizing that loose talk my not rhetorically make this distinction)
“As your comment #23 showed, we cannot avoid that discussion if we are talking about changing our characters to match God’s character.”
No, comment #23 shows that you can’t avoid talking about instant transformation of character if you are talking about progression between kingdoms.
Besides, instant transformation vs. slow transformation is only about grace and works if you think the grace-works debate is either-or: either grace (instant transformation) or works (we do it ourselves). But I think most Mormons, me included, think grace and works function in tandem.
You have yet to explain why believing that exaltation includes “changing our characters to match God’s character” requires a certain view of grace and works while believing that exaltation only includes “changing our characters to somewhat match God’s character” does not, or vice versa.
Clark Goble,
I can’t really argue with you on instant transformation because I don’t believe it myself. But I’d be really surprised if one couldn’t construct a plausible defense of the position, albeit one that you and I might disagree with.
Well, it’s hard to interrogate an interlocutor if they don’t take the opposing side. I’m not sure a consistent view could be made. I think the LDS theology of mortality make this transformation quite problematic. A limited transformation perhaps.
The problem that I raised about dualism seems apt. Without even considering our spiritual nature, it seems that much who who we are is an accident of birth. That is the way our brain developed up to around 8 years old. Yet we like to pretend that we can isolate out the “real” us. Clearly a transformation of the brain is possible, and perhaps fairly quickly. That can massively change us. And indeed I think that is what happens at the resurrection.
The real question is what is left over? Which, I suspect, is really just a question about Naturalism.
Contra your comment #9.
I am afraid I am not even sure what you arguing for or against at this point, AG. If you point is simply that the position that we can become all that the Father is does not bring up questions of grace-works and progression between kingdoms for everyone then I readily agree. It does bring up those questions for me based on my understanding of the underlying truths.
Clark: After re-reading my comment on changing bodies and not changing characters I need to clarify. It does seem to me that character and body do not necessarily correlate. For instance, the Celestially-charactered Christ inhabited a Telestial and corruptible body here.
Also, it was not me that argued originally that having all the Father has entails being as He is. Ryan made that argument in the original post. I like the idea, but I am not set on it.
In comment #9, I understood you to be arguing that exaltation as Ryan understood it entailed, or at least strongly indicated, both a unique position on grace-works and progression between kingdoms. If you’re only saying that it entails or indicates them for *you*, given your other beliefs, fine.
I take it that you are one of those who believes that exaltation doesn’t require any change of character for us? Because otherwise, i don’t understand how, even for you, exaltation as Ryan understands it would entail a unique position on grace and works. If so, how do you explain the scriptures on the natural man and, indeed, on sin in general?
Adam, regarding Grace, as I mentioned at Ben’s thread at T&S I think the event vs. process model is important to keep in mind. I think it relevant here. I think it is true that a discussion of Grace is apt here.
Geoff, aren’t you merely saying that a telestial body can be celestially charactered? It seems you say nothing about whether character is separate from body. Further you must explain how certain evil character behaviors come out of brain structure. That is the big issue that I think Mormons haven’t dealt with. In my experience most Mormons talk about the body as being important, but end up in practice assuming a kind of dualism that neglects the brain. Yet science has shown a lot about the brain as tied to character that we can’t simply neglect.
Clark,
Ignoring the brain might just be operation, e.g., you can’t tell what evil is biological and what isn’t, even in oneself, so better to act as if you and everyone else are responsible,
AG: I take it that you are one of those who believes that exaltation doesn’t require any change of character for us?
We must be really disconnecting in our communication, Adam. My take is actually quite the opposite. I believe that God cannot change our character in any way. Rather, that his grace enables us to choose to change ourselves — therefore, becoming all that the Father is a matter of choice (aka work, repentance, or self-effort) from start to finish (although the entire process is enabled by the grace of Christ). So while God can freely give us things without any work on our part (like new, resurrected bodies) he cannot give us an improved character for free. If we are to become as he is it well not be a free ride at all.
Clark,
Well obviously we had character traits before we had bodies, so they can be separated. But I do concede that our mortal bodies, and especially our brains, make a huge difference in our character on earth — at least in how we are able to display and act on our spiritual character. I think that the scriptures (Abr. 3 for instance) make it clear that we were all on a continuum of godliness of character prior to arriving here. But you are right that we know very little about the interrelations between body and spirit — why we have the bodies/brains we do here, how that is part of our probation, etc. What happens when a bright and spiritually brilliant spirit is put into a body with a brain that just doesn’t function properly for instance…
I think the parable of the talents helps give a general overview of that concept though — we are asked to take what we get here and double it.
Geoff, but even if we had character traits before we had bodies that says little about our current character traits which are grossly affected if not determined by our bodies. Further, even if we had character traits by spirits it seems the common LDS materialist view would suggest that such traits there were a result of the material composition. i.e. the equivalent of a spirit brain.
I would be one who believes in the possibility of “instantaneous transformation” in a possibly idiosyncratic sense (ie. I know what I mean by it, but it may not mean what you feel it should). If we are to understand grace as a gift of God, why would we deny that God has the power to change us?
John C: why would we deny that God has the power to change us?
I do so because I think it contradicts our doctrine of free agency. God describes how he helps people change in section 121 it is not an instantaneous process (or external to the choices of the person). Instantaneous change might work if we are just creations of God, but it does not work for me if we of the same species as and co-eternal with God.
Clark,
Whether there is such a thing as spiritual brain malfunction or not is an interesting question. I doubt it — I suspect that spirit brains fit the “perfected” description we expect for our resurrected bodies. Do you think that assumption of mine is unwarranted?
Geoff J: God describes how he helps people change in section 121 it is not an instantaneous process (or external to the choices of the person). Instantaneous change might work if we are just creations of God, but it does not work for me if we of the same species as and co-eternal with God.
Not to expose my ignorance or anything, but what in 121 exactly are you referring to?
I don’t agree with J when I say this, but I am not convinced that (at this time) we are the same “species” as God (whatever that might mean). I agree that we are co-eternal, but I don’t feel a need to believe that this means that we are of the same stuff or same character. That we can become so, I believe, is a matter of divine grace.
Part of the problem is that when we say that we can change ourselves through sufficient willpower or determination, I wonder what the point of repentance is exactly. If God doesn’t change us, whence repentance?
heres my thoughts:
God is our Heavenly Father.
He organized our spirits. Hence he is our Father. But he didnt create us. We have always existed as intelligences. All Spirit is matter and vice versa.
We can become like him.
I belive if I were to be allowed to enter the highest glories of the Celestial Kingdom, to withstand that glory, it will be because of the Atonement, which since I have partaken of the Baptismal covenant, The Savior’s merits, mercy and grace allows me to become pure and clean and able to standin the holy glory of that Kingdom. If that day does come about it will be in another eternity, as I still have to pass through this estate, die, in the millienium still work out my faith and repentance and work for others. Years and years still I will be in the spirit learning and growing until that judgement day, where I beleive that I will go where I will feel most comfortable, it will be My heaven, it will be where I will understand and be living the laws that govern that place.
Now is the time to prepare to meet God and I dont expect a mighty change on my personality or morals at that time, thats what I am working on now and in the spirit world before Judgement day…which will be a long time yet to come.
AJ
I’m not sure what it means to call a spirit “perfected” if 1/3 of all such spirits rebelled and became what we’d call ultimately evil. Exactly what does it mean? Further, relative to a resurrected body, what does it mean to call it perfected if there are degrees of glory with such bodies? Exactly how are you using the word “perfect”? And exactly how do you suggest we apply it to our bodies?
John,
This is what I am referring to in section 121:
This describes to me not only the way we must attempt to influence others to do good, but also the way that God influences his children for good.
If we take it a step further (which I think is probably justified) to say that God’s power is the priesthood, then we can say that in fact God can not compel us to be righteous.
If Satan’s plan really was one of compulsion it seems no stretch to me that God will never compel someone to be righteous or to become more righteous than the actively choose to become through free will. Indeed, it seems that the priesthood (God’s power) cannot be used to that end without short-circuiting.
That we can become so, I believe, is a matter of divine grace.
It appears you see a much wider gap between God and humankind than I do.
Part of the problem is that when we say that we can change ourselves through sufficient willpower or determination, I wonder what the point of repentance is exactly.
I don’t understand. I thought changing ourselves through willpower and determination (as enabled by the atonement) is the definition of repentance.
Perfected is one thing. all will have a perfected body who has came here on earth.
Glory is another. Their glory will be respective to thier conversion.
YOur first sentence I dont get, I dont get the point of the pre-mortal spirits having to do with a perfected spirit.
I endorse Geoff’s last post.
well done mate!
🙂
Clark,
I am thinking of perfected bodies as meaning “no malfuctions or deformities” in this case. That would mean that there is no mental illness or other factors that impede the full development of character (and responsibility thereof). I envision this applying to spirit bodies and resurrected bodies alike regardless of the model. I can’t prove this of course — it is just how I imagine things.
Jonh C-
wouldnt that be Inspiration? instead of compulsion?
I see the verse in Ether 12:27 as describing how God helps us. He does not help us like Geppetto fixing the wooden Pinocchio, rather he helps us as a loving Father teaching a child to improve and become more like himself. He is the master teacher and through his condescension and grace we are his students.
Regarding compulsion, I think you run into real trouble when you try to create categories of good compulsion and bad compulsion. I agree with Andres that if there is such a thing as “good compulsion” it is not really compulsion but rather inspiration or encouragement.
Again, I don’t think God can compel me to be a more righteous person than I can compel my children to be more righteous. Teaching and guiding is the only way.
As for the Gap between us and God — we are either His children in some literal sense or we are not. If we are literally his children then the gap between us and Him is very small indeed.
But Geoff, how do you define “malfunction or deformity” in a way that doesn’t beg the question?
Perhaps we could set the concept of a human body and brain that have no malfunctions or deformities (like, say, father Adam’s mind and body) as the baseline. I assume spirit bodies and resurrected bodies all meet that standard of perfection at least.
Geoff and Andres,
Why did we need to fall? I would suggest that the reason for the fall is to create a world wherein sin and weakness is inevitable, compelling us to turn to the Savior for salvation. I agree that we each need to make the choice (God can’t force us to be saved), but he can create (and, I would argue, has created) a world for us to live in where it is absolutely impossible to rely solely on ourselves. I agree that he won’t make us turn to him, but with the caveat that he has stacked the cards in the mortal world against any other possibility working out.
We are told that there is one way to salvation. It actually appears that there is one way to salvation. Although we must choose it actively, don’t you find that just a tad compulsary (assuming that you want to be saved)?
Let’s put this a different way. In Ether 12:27, God says that He has given people weaknesses so that they will turn to Him. If they will turn to Him, He will turn those weaknesses into strengths. Why does God want us to be humble and submissive, so much so that he has placed us on a world were we will inevitably sin and be weak?
Oops, I missed this. Regarding the gap, what would you say the gap is between an embryo or perhaps a blastocyst and an adult human. Genetically they are similar, but an embryo (sp?) simply can’t do, think, be in the way a grown human can.
The problem with these metaphors is that they fail to capture the nature of the change. You think it is a matter of growing up (which this metaphor accepts). I think it is a matter of growing up too but I think the important bit is when we stop being essentially a grouping of cells and start being a person. Just as when are unsure where this happens in the womb, I am unsure where this happens in eternal progression. But I am sure that it happens and I don’t believe that it is either inevitable or a function of the multiplication and specialization of cells alone.
I mostly agree with your last two comments John.
I think your embryo-adult analogy is a strong one. My only caveat is that Abraham 3 says to me that each of us are already at different level of progression on that embryo to adult continuum. Some are indeed just embryos, but where do you think the pre-mortal Christ was on that scale? A young adult? A late teen? A pre-teen? A toddler? Well wherever you put him, remember that he “stood among” the other noble and great intelligences there. Abraham was one of them. I take that as evidence that some of humankind is much was much closer to being like God prior to arrival here than other were.
My other quibble is that you seem to be assuming that the world we came from prior to our probation here was not “a world wherein sin and weakness is inevitable”. What makes you assume that?
humbug. 😛
I still dont believe God compells us to obey the commandments. HE wants us to. He purpose, joy and glory is to have us return, but I think its all on us to do the very least, which is faith in Christ, repentence, baptism and recieve the holy ghost.
Andres, rest assured. I do believe we have a choice. I just believe that God has stacked the deck in favor of doing things his way.
Geoff, I don’t know where to put Christ on the embryo-adult continuum aside from far ahead of all of us. As for humanity, I am terribly reluctant to put any of us (even the noble and great) very far along (I was serious when I substituted blastocyst for embryo (or, if I’ve gotten my biology wrong, the grouping of just a few cells)). We simply aren’t spiritually developed enough to seriously entertain comparisons between God and ourselves where we register. Also, I don’t draw the conclusion that since Christ was among the noble and great that he was one of the noble and great. I believe he had, at that point, progressed well beyond that type of categorization.
Regarding the other quibble, I think that the nature of the world from which we came is reflected in the nature of the punishment given those who chose poorly there as opposed to the nature of the punishment given to those who choose poorly here.
Geoff, I don’t see how that resolves the problem. While we can say, “like Adam,” that avoids the question of whether Adam had such or what the terms mean.
Let me give a suggestion to coax a perhaps better answer out.
I think these are all judgments with respect to a specific function. The error is either to exclude discussion of function while focusing in on disability or to assume that there is some absolute sense independent of function.
Clark,
I think there is no question doctrinally that our spirit bodies exist independently of our mortal bodies. So I will re-use the analogy I pulled out at your blog. I compare our spirits to a musician and our mortal bodies to the instrument (let’s say a saxophone). When it comes to the quality of music that is possible, the both are crucial. A bad player sounds bad on a great instrument and a great player is severely limited by a crappy instrument. I assume that the bodies we had as spirits and will have as resurrected beings are “great instruments”. I admit that I can’t get more detailed than that because I am just speculating here.
J. Stapley wrote:
I do not see anywhere where Joseph Smith taught that Exaltation was to be all that the Father is.
Whether Joseph did or not, Christ did (emphasis mine):
Where have you been, Grasshopper? (Nice proof text — BTW.)
He’s been chillin’ with DiMaggio. This is a good verse, especially as it comes from the BoM, the more trinitarian of our scriptures.
As a proof text for Nauvoo concepts of Exaltation, I remain unconvinced. It reads to me as stressing the fullness of joy.