I agree with the post and with the central thesis about parenting giving us enormous insight into the nature of God. I have learned much as well from my children’s responses to me in terms of how childish I can be with God.

Being a doctor has changed very much some of my former belief’s regarding God’s relationship to us. I don’t believe disease (HIV, cancer, auto-immunity) is a manifestation of God’s displeasure and I don’t believe that disease outcomes (death, progression of disease, healing) are manifestations of his will. I think this is one area where we can be confused about our relationships with him and harbor ill will toward God when things don’t go the way we planned.

Thanks for the post

Craig

Thanks so much for the post. Made my day and helped to lift me spiritually!

I’ve always viewed knowledge of the gospel like an onion. You can stay at the top layers, if you wish (as a child) or you can peal away the layers and learn more. It is expected of us to do that. As you exercise faith and gain knowledge, God reveals more of Himself to us. Not only do we achieve blessings, but we move closer to our objective of knowing God.

I am ok, like Shawn, to put aside things where my faith, knowledge and experience have not quite allowed me to fully comprehend. I assume if I keep learning and praying that at some point I will. The Atonement, for example, is one subject where my level of understanding is still quite low where I hope to learn much more in the coming years.

I used to think ordinances were merely symbolic. Now, I see them as eternal fruits of grace.

A: We believe that the apostle Peter’s biblical reference to partaking of the divine nature and the apostle Paul’s reference to being ‘joint heirs with Christ’ reflect the intent that children of God should strive to emulate their Heavenly Father in every way. Throughout the eternities, Mormons believe, they will reverence and worship God the Father and Jesus Christ. The goal is not to equal them or to achieve parity with them but to imitate and someday acquire their perfect goodness, love and other divine attributes. ””

This is very similar to theosis as postulated by some early Fathers of the Christian church — at least as I understand their beliefs — and if this were the extent of LDS theosist theology (which I would very much doubt given the strong ‘folk doctrine’ loyalty I grew up with). The Christian concept of deification recalls, in a way, Nirvana, where the Christian can be swept up, as it were, into the glory of God, and one’s personal identity becomes a perfect reflection of God. But not God. For there is none but one God. Ever.

I think this is very different from “Mormon Theosis” as I learned about it growing up, and as I’ve seen it articulated by LDS believers and discussed at LDS church. This doctrine is that finite Mormons can aspire to become infinite gods and goddesses and create their own planets, and posterity who worship them, thus continuing a chain they see doctrinal support for in Follett Discourse, Book of Abraham teachings, and Lorenzo Snow couplet, among others. And while such exalted Mormons would still worship God the Father and Jesus Christ, there are other Gods whom the Father worships, and other Gods with whom none in this “chain of worship” would have anything to do. It is this permutation of Mormon theosis that is deeply offensive to traditional Christians because it is apotheosist and henotheist. (And because of the strong Trinitarian monotheist convictions of said theosis-inclined early Christian Fathers, offensive to their thinking, too.) However, to the extent such peculiar LDS doctrines are mere folk doctrine, not actually LDS canon, I think theosis, as Hamer articulated, would find sympathetic community among inclined Christian theologians. Based on my experience I still think it is renegade to define Mormon deification as I learned it as mere folk doctrine, therefore I find Hamer’s articulation revisionist. Revisionist as it may be, it do think it is more sympathetic to traditional Christian Trinitarian allegiance, and would hope to see this inclination of thinking grow within the LDS faith. (Theosis, even as a few early Fathers believed or postulated, or as believed by many Eastern Orthodox Christians, is not the favored way of articulating soteriological doctrines and hopes by most rank and file Christians and many of their clergy and denominations. Be that as it may traditional theosis is not considered heretical because it is still strictly monotheist.)

I see your posts all over the Bloggernacle and though I rarely agree with your viewpoint, I thank you for sharing your insight in #12.

George Bernard Shaw, the Irish dramatist and critic (1856–1950), summed up an approach to life: “Other people,” he said, “see things and say, ‘WHY?’ But I dream things that never were—and I say, ‘WHY NOT?’ ” We need people who can dream of things that never were, and ask, “WHY NOT?”

President Kimball’s vision of the future of the church involved exactly the question ‘Why Not?,’and I would say he received the benefit of “more and more light”.

Re: “And what experiences, principles, or other defining influences are responsible for your evolving view of God?”

I’ve pondered this question after President Hinckley answered a reporter’s question about the couplet, “As Man is God once was, etc.” and his response as defended by fairlds at http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Does_President_Hinckley_Understand_LDS_Doctrine.html

One can make many assumptions about the language in a couplet so brief and given the limitations of mortal mind, can one really comprehend all that is necessary to explain the couplet with the details required. President Hinckley wisely answered that there remains much to be understood about the exact nature of God.

John Hamer posted this question and answer from “21 Questions Answered About Mormon Faith” in his post entitled, “Planet Kolob to Mormons”

” Q: Does the Mormon Church believe its followers can become “gods and goddesses” after death?

A: We believe that the apostle Peter’s biblical reference to partaking of the divine nature and the apostle Paul’s reference to being ‘joint heirs with Christ’ reflect the intent that children of God should strive to emulate their Heavenly Father in every way. Throughout the eternities, Mormons believe, they will reverence and worship God the Father and Jesus Christ. The goal is not to equal them or to achieve parity with them but to imitate and someday acquire their perfect goodness, love and other divine attributes. ”

Is this explanation “de-emphasizing weird beliefs” or is it unlearning traditions? Could be either, but keeping the mind open to the possibility that either could be the correct answer and asking “why not” will hopefully lead to more and more light.

One reply to this post cited a common perception:

“someday people can get their own planets and have cosmic sex and populate those planets”

I would say that the above perception is full of tradition and low on scriptural correlation.

Hawkgrrrl – Interesting comment. I never looked at the phrase in the literal sense. I guess a better phrase would be “Inspired Word of God” although I’ll probably continue to use the traditional “Word of God”.

Andrew – great post! I think our perception of God when we are children is not only colored by our relationship with our parents, as was pointed out above, but also by the fact of being a child and having that sense that everything is so big and others are making the rules and in control of our lives. Even if those forces are benevolent, it can feel a little overwhelming as a child.

I think your post really outlines two different types of false beliefs: those that are childish or immature, and those that are traditions that are inconsistent with what you believe (or in this case, what we as LDS believe). The traditions are based on scholarly religious or scriptural interpretations, whereas I see the childish beliefs stemming from the worldview we have when we are little.

Although God created everyone, He only loves only a few of His children enough to guarantee their salvation for them; the others He sends to Hell to suffer for eternity.”

I agree that this is an immature or childish perspective. It happens, for sure, but one should hardly paint this out that this is the predominant or only Christian perspective. It isn’t. Even Hell in Christianity is not seen as an uncompassionate judgement. Hell is separation from God. If humans don’t want a life with Him, don’t want to worship him, and don’t want to follow Him, Hell is seen as God giving such children exactly what they desire. He doesn’t force a relationship with anyone.

God knows His own, and he draws His unto Him by many ways: by His testament in Nature, by His Spirit, by those who come to know Him through good deeds (for ex Cornelius), through many believers who willingly serve Him and their fellow humans, through the power of His Word, etc. Scripture sure seems clear to me that many will not choose Him despite all of this. Even the Book of Mormon says this life is a time to repent. So do we trust God to do His work? To draw them who will accept Him unto Him? Do we wrest Him into being the kind of God we think He should be by playing by the whims of evolving mortal rules of fairness, of morality? Do we need proof in the form of our ordinance records? Of “notches on the belt” of whomever has “closed” the most altar call confessions? Relying on our mortal arm of flesh for proof that God is doing His work happens in the Mormon church (but not always) as well as in some Christian churches.

I don’t think trusting in God’s power to reach His own means we give up in sharing the Good Word with others. Certainly Jesus says we don’t light a lamp to immediately extinguish it. But I do think it is humbling, and the ultimate act of Free Will to submit ourselves willingly to His Will, to ask Him to use our lives as He may, and in sum, to trust that He has the power to reach all He knows will draw unto Him as His children. While I don’t believe in the LDS ordinance-oriented salvation, I respect the compassionate attitude behind the belief and practice. However, I did want to add my point to the discussion, which is that I think the Christian scriptural perspective I have outlined is also a very compassionate, trustful and mature perspective. And it is not a revolutionary nor uncommon one either. Again, while we differ in beliefs and practices, I don’t think it need to be an “war” of whose God is more sublimely compassionate.

Ballou made one statement, however, that deeply affected me. It is impossible, he believed, for finite man to offend an infinite god. This struck me, and I pondered on it a great deal. As a very imperfect father, I could become frustrated (and yes, even angry at times) when my children acted against my direction, but would I toss any of them out of my home for it? If deity was a perfect parent, surely he was not more capricious than me. He wouldn’t be worthy of worship if he was.

The modern style of a “loving parent” in my mind does not fit God very well.

I have always felt God’s love for me and all His children, but He has always seemed more of a loving Puritan parent.

I think we would do well to remember that being a loving parent does not always result in the same ideas on child raising.

If we put took the two greatest commandments, which appear in the old and new testaments and try to apply them at mere face value, we’d probably be better off. As humans, we tend to complicate matters because our rational mind needs to comprehend what our spiritual minds may be too immature to fully understand.

What we learn as a child is given to us by the very people who should be advanced enough in their spiritual development to know better than to tell us stories that will not hold up to the test later in our lives..

Excellent post, Andrew.

“From the beginning of the world God ordained the sabbath, the seventh day as a day of rest. That can’t be argued”

It can’t be argued that this is what the Bible says. But I think this is 100% teaching a principle rather than an actual event. I don’t believe that God finished creating the earth after billions of years and just relaxed for a bit. Did he nap? Did he play chess? Did he take a break from creation to visit with family? Thus, I can and do argue that God did not literally ordain the seventh day from the beginning of the world.

This, I suppose, is another evolution in my belief about God from when I was a child.

This is such a good post. I’m going to break my normal ban on posting via the week just to say hi and tell you how much I agree with you on this. I believe God’s love must be understood from the stand point of a good parent. If it’s less than this, it’s certainly not perfect love.

Particularly, God weeps as the rain upon the mountains, which shocks Enoch. And God says he is angry and will wipe out the people with a flood. But then he says:

37 … and the whole heavens shall weep over them, even all the workmanship of mine hands; wherefore should not the heavens weep, seeing these shall suffer?

This is like an earthly parent. Our kids may be disobedient, and we may punish them, but we’ll still weep for their suffering along with the suffering of our obedient children.

This whole chapter continues to move me profoundly. It teaches me that 1) God deeply loves his wicked children, 2) God is Love: everything he does is out of love, and 2) following the Plan of Happiness does not mean we will only ever feel happiness, even in Eternity.