Do Mormons think they that they will become gods? [Open Thread]

Numerous critics claim that LDS religion is blasphemous and even Satanic because we allegedly think we will become gods. They say we try to rob God and Christ of their glory, the same dark sin that caused Lucifer to be cast to hell in Isaiah 14.

When the critics make these claims, they never explain what LDS doctrine really is and what it is not. We absolutely DO NOT believe that we will ever be independent of God or no longer subject to Him.

We do not believe that we will take away His glory, but we only add to it by following Christ. For us, there is and always will be a need to be subject to God the Eternal Father, the Almighty God, the "God of gods and Lord of lords," as Deuteronomy 10:17 puts it. He is the One whom we worship and always will worship. The modern Apostle Boyd K. Packer has clarified this issue:

The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him.

He is Eloheim, the Father. He is God. Of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him.

There is only one Christ, one Redeemer. We accept the divinity of the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. We accept the promise that we may become joint heirs with Him.

To those who follow Christ and receive His grace and power, great promises are extended. We are promised that we can receive "the fullness of God" through the grace of Christ (Ephesians 3:19).

Christ said that we can become one with Him, as He is one with the Father (John 17:20-23).

Paul said that Christians can become "joint heirs with Christ" and be glorified with Him (Romans 8:14-18).

He challenged us to pursue the example of Christ "who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Philippians 2:5,6).

Peter said that through Christ, we can "put on the divine nature" and receive great and precious promises (2 Peter 1:3-4).

Those who follow Christ can become "like Him" (1 John 3:2), can "inherit all things" (Rev. 21:7), and can be kings and priests before God (Rev. 1:6), sitting with Christ in His throne (Rev. 3:21).

Critics, how do you explain away such scriptures? They disclose an important aspect of early Christianity, the doctrine of "theosis," holding that man can become like God (much more evidence is given below).

After pondering the above-mentioned scriptures, let's turn to terminology. What do we call glorified, resurrected beings who, through Christ, receive eternal life and the fullness of God as joint-heirs with Christ, sitting with Him in his throne? Personally, I would prefer to call them angels who serve and represent God.

However, the word that is used in the Bible and in other LDS sources to describe such beings is not generally angels, but the much more controversial term, gods.

(In Doctrine and Covenants 132, "gods" are clearly higher than the angels - but they are nevertheless children of God and subject to Him.) Accept my apologies, but the choice of the term "gods" is not ours.

Christ himself spoke of humans when he quoted Psalms 82:6 and said, in John 10:34, "Ye are gods." As every serious Christian scholar knows, He was not saying that humans are God, but is often interpreted as saying that human representatives of God can be called "gods" in a very limited sense. Humans are not and will not be gods in the sense of Greek philosophy (absolute, ultimate, uncreated, independent beings).

No, the terms "gods" when used in the Bible and LDS writings may be meant in a more limited sense not radically different in meaning than "angels" (though a difference in LDS sources is that "angels" are single while "gods" dwell in eternal family relationships, as discussed below).

If we used the term "angels," the anti-LDS attacks would lose much of their zing. After all, how many people would be interested in seeing a movie called "The Angel Makers"? But the term "gods" is what God Himself has chosen to describe the divine potential of His sons and daughters. Let's now consider some examples.

The possibility of multiple "godlike" beings seems to be what Paul referred to when he said there are "gods many and lords many, but to us there is but one God, the Father" (1 Cor. 8:5,6). It also seems to be what David meant in Psalm 8:4,5 when he said that man is "a little lower than the gods."

The King James Version (and most translations) gives "lower than the angels," but the Hebrew word is "elohim" which means "gods." Commentators have long explained that this term, literally meaning "gods," is describing angels - divine beings serving or representing God.

The existence of other godlike beings is suggested by multiple scriptures that describe God as a "God of gods" (Deut. 10:17; Joshua 22:2, and Psalm 136:2). That phrase makes no sense if false pagan gods are meant, but perhaps it refers to angels as gods.

Psalm 82:1 likewise says that God "standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods." Scholars know that the ancient Jews, including those in New Testament times, that angels were often described as "gods." (E.g., John Strugnell, The Angelic Liturgy at Qumran in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum VII, [Congress Volume, Oxford, 1959], Leiden: Brill, 1960, pp. 336-338; or A.S. van der Woude, Oudtestamentische Studien, Vol. 14, 1965, pp. 345-373, as cited by Stephen Robinson, Are Mormons Christians?, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991, p. 67).

Not only angels, but even humans can receive the label "gods" in the scriptures. For example, the term "elohim" = "gods" is used to describe human judges in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9.

Here authorized servants of God are called "gods" - again in a limited sense. Exodus 7:1 says that Moses was to be "god to Pharaoh" - undoubtedly referring to Moses as an authorized represent of God.

(Also Adam, when he gained knowledge of good and evil, was said to have become "as one of us" by God in Genesis 3:22.) If the scriptures can call mortal judges and prophets "gods" in some sense, then that term is even more appropriate for immortal, resurrected beings who have become one with Christ and received the fullness of God.

A particularly interesting example is found in Psalm 82:6: "Ye are gods; and all of you children of the most High." Christ repeated that scripture in John 10:34-36 to defend Himself against charges of blasphemy:

Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

In other words, if the scriptures label mortals who receive the law (and thus represent God) as "gods," then why should the Jews be outraged when Christ says He is the Son of God?

Christ pointed out that Psalm 82:6 was not a mistake or a fluke, for He added the phrase "and the scripture cannot be broken" right after it, stressing that it was accurate and that its meaning could not be argued away.

Some have argued that the word "gods" really should be "judges." This argument fails completely. For detailed documentation on the use of "elohim" = "gods" in Psalm 82:6, and a refutation of the common argument that only "judges" and not "gods" is meant, see the article "Reconsidering Psalms 82:6: Judges or Gods?

A Proposal" by Ben McGuire and also "Maklelan, Psalm 82: 'elohim' as 'judges'? No." at Lehi's Library, where we see that extensive scholarship leads to this conclusion:

In conclusion, "judges" [instead of "elohim in Psalm 82:6] is simply a bizarre translation appealed to by two early Rabbinic texts in an attempt to avoid mentioning other gods.

The translation has been shown to be incorrect, has been shown not to have ever been used before those Rabbinic texts, and has been shown to be rejected outright by contemporary scholars, including prominent Evangelical scholars. The word elohim simply cannot mean "judges."

If the Bible can use the term "gods" in to describe non-ultimate but heavenly, angelic beings who represent God, then Bible-believing people should not be outraged when Latter-day Saints use that term in much the same way.

Our use of the term is clearly in a limited sense, referring to angelic, resurrected beings who receive great blessings and power from God, but remain subject to Him and serve and worship Him forever.

LDS doctrine on this needlessly controversial issue is similar to the teachings of C.S. Lewis, who also understood the divine potential of humans beings. Here is a quote from his book, The Grand Miracle (Ballantine Books, New York, 1970), p. 85 (on the last page of the essay, "Man or Rabbit?" in Chapter 11):

The people who keep on asking if they can't lead a good life without Christ, don't know what life is about; if they did they would know that "a decent life" is mere machinery compared with the thing we men are really made for. Morality is indispensable: but the Divine Life, which gives itself to us and which calls us to be gods, intends for us something in which morality will be swallowed up.

We are to be remade. All the rabbit in us will be swallowed up - the worried, conscientious, ethical rabbit as well as the cowardly and sensual rabbit.

We shall bleed and squeal as the handfuls of fur come out; and then surprisingly, we shall find underneath it all a thing we have never yet imagined: a real man, an ageless god, a son of God, strong, radiant, wise, beautiful, and drenched in joy. [emphasis mine] And from the same book, p. 65 (the last page of Chapter 8):

Christ has risen, and so we shall rise. St. Peter for a few seconds walked on the water, and the day will come when there will be a remade universe, infinitely obedient to the will of glorified and obedient men, when we can do all things, when we shall be those gods that we are described as being in Scripture.

Here is a related quote from Lewis's book, Mere Christianity (Collier Books, MacMillan Publ. Co., New York, 1943; paperback edition, 1960; p. 160 - the last paragraph of Chapter 9, "Counting the Cost," in Book IV):

"The command Be ye perfect [Matt. 5:48] is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible.

He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were "gods" and he is going to make good His words.

He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness.

The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what he said."

From the Bible, which teaches us that we can indeed put on the divine nature and mature as sons and daughters of God, becoming like Him.

In my view, it is our status as children of God that gives us the potential to become heirs and the potential to mature and become more like the Father. Paul expresses such a concept in Romans 8:14-18:

"14 For as many as are lead by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.... 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God; 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified together; 18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

We can be joint-heirs with Christ. There is divine glory to be revealed within us, for we have a divine inheritance as children of God.

Beings who reach this potential could be called "gods" in a limited sense, for they serve the Father and are subject to Him forever. Just as earthly parents want their children to grow and become more like the parents, so our Father in Heaven wants us to grow and partake of his glorious gift of eternal life. It is not an instant process, but one that requires that we learn, obey, and strive, yet relying entirely on the grace of Christ in the process. This relationship between God and man is further affirmed in Hebrews 12:9,10:

9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits and live?

10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but He [God] for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.

A key point here is that God is the Father of our spirits. Indeed, Paul in Acts 17:28 says "we are also his offspring." Our spirits existed before we were born into mortality. As sons and daughters of God, we witnessed the creation of the world and shouted for joy, according to Job 38:7. As spirit sons and daughters, we have inherited something divine within us.

We have been placed on earth to grow, to learn, to understand good and evil, to learn to choose on our own, and to be tried, for now we have a veil of forgetfulness over our memories of the premortal existence with God. We are also sent here to obtain a physical body which can be resurrected and glorified like the glorious and powerful body of Christ (Phil. 3:21).

There is glory waiting to be revealed in us, as Paul wrote in Romans 8:14-18 and as John wrote in 1 John 3: 2:

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him...

Growing to become more like Christ and more like our Father in Heaven should be our goal, as Christ has commanded us (Matt. 5:48). How do we grow in that way?

By following Christ with all of our heart, might, mind, and strength. Our Father in Heaven wants us to accept Christ and to follow and obey Him, that we might return to His presence and become partakers of His holiness and fullness (Heb. 12:10; Eph. 3:19), or, as Peter wrote in 2 Peter 1:3-10, "partakers of the divine nature":

3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;

6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;

8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall.

Peter outlines some of the things we must do to make our calling and election sure - but it is only through the grace of Christ that such an opportunity exists.

The goal of Christ and the Father is to help us grow and put on the divine nature, to become more like Christ and to be joint-heirs with Him.

Within us is the divine potential to fully become sons and daughters of God, living in His presence and sharing in the fullness of eternal life that is His. This profound truth is the target of some of the most vile attacks on our religion, yet it is a truth held and taught by the original Christian Church.

Fortunately, Latter-day Saints aren't the only Christian denomination that accept what Peter taught on this issue. Eastern Orthodoxy still retains much of the original Christian doctrine of theosis or deification.

Here's a quote from Orthodox writer, Dr. Seth Farber ("The Reign of Augustine," The Christian Activist: A Journal of Orthodox Opinion, Vol. 13, Winter/Spring 1999, pp. 40-45,56):

Eastern Christian theology, Orthodoxy, has not been marred by the misanthropic premises that have been characteristic of Western Christian theology, Roman Catholic and Protestant, for centuries [e.g., the concept that infants are already great sinners worthy of damnation, that man is totally depraved, etc. - see the bottom part of my page about Adam and the Fall]. From the early Greek fathers to modern Orthodox theologians, one dominant theme has sounded again and again: the purpose of the Incarnation was to make it possible for human beings to be reunited with God, to become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

As St. Athanasius put it, "He (the Son of God) became man, that we might become God."

Accept it or not, it's hard to say this doctrine excludes one from Christianity unless we wish to condemn Orthodoxy and reject old St. Athanasius himself and even C.S. Lewis as cultists.

While we have noted that the divine potential of man is found in the Old Testament, further insight comes from the Old Testament manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

A great source for studying the Old Testament from the Dead Sea Scrolls is The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, translated and with commentary by Martin Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugen Ulrich (San Francisco, California: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999).

Numerous Old Testament passages are provided from the Dead Sea Scrolls and compared to the Masoretic text or Septuagint. The version of Psalm 135 from the Dead Sea Scrolls (The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, p. 568) differs in many ways from the Masoretic Text used to prepare most modern Bible translation.

One difference is the added emphasis given on "gods" in verses 5 and 6. Here is the DSS text, with changes relative to the Masoretic Text marked in italics:

6. The LORD does what pleases him, in heaven and on earth, to do as he does; there is none like the LORD, and there is none who acts like the King of gods, in the seas and in all (their) depths.

"King of the gods" is an interesting title for God, similar to the title "God of gods" in Deut. 10:17, which is reiterated in Psalm 136:2. Such titles don't make much sense if the "gods" are imaginary, evil beings.

Would it be flattering to call someone the god of leprechauns and poltergeists? But the true God of the Bible, the only God with whom have anything to do, and to Whom all glory flows, is nonetheless properly praised as the God of gods. This makes sense in light of the divine potential of man.

The doctrine of divine human potential is easily misunderstood. To keep it clear, remember this: the growth and development and success of a child in no way detracts from the honor or glory of the parents, but adds to it.

If we participate in Eternal Life as heirs of God, we will be worshiping and glorifying God fully and wonderfully - not taking or usurping his glory. And we will more perfectly and fully be able to say that we are His children, and He is our God (Rev. 21:7), and glory be to His name forever.

LDS doctrine teaches that we can be joint-heirs with Christ and inherit all that the Father has, sharing in the incredible, unimaginable type of life that is called Eternal Life.

One important but easily misunderstood aspect of eternal life is eternal families.

We believe that families can be sealed for eternity in the Temple of God, so that the marriage of a husband and wife is not over at death, but persists into the eternities (if they want it to, and if they remain true to their covenants with God), as can family bonds.

Perhaps this is what Peter meant when he said that a husband and wife can become heirs together of the grace of life (1 Peter 3:7).

This marriage must be performed with the sealing power and Priesthood authority that Christ gave to Peter, which, among other things, allows a marriage or "sealing" performed on earth to be valid in heaven as well (Matt. 16:19).

(Temple marriage, like baptism, is an ordinance of change and covenant making which must be done in this mortal world, either while alive or by proxy for the deceased, not in heaven, which is a place of eternal relationships where new marriages are not performed.)

We also believe that those who receive eternal life and accept eternal marriage can be blessed with posterity in the next life, a concept known as "eternal increase."

Details have not been revealed, in spite of much speculation. But it seems that God's sons and daughters in the eternal family unit can in some way become "co-creators" with Him in the eternities, just as they can be "co-creators" with Him in this life in the bringing of children into the world.

I don’t know the complete context of Talmage but this is in the scriptures which refers to Jesus Chrsit

1 Tim 3
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

also

Here is a related quote from Lewis’s book, Mere Christianity (Collier Books, MacMillan Publ. Co., New York, 1943; paperback edition, 1960; p. 160 - the last paragraph of Chapter 9, “Counting the Cost,” in Book IV):

“The command Be ye perfect [Matt. 5:48] is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible.

He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and he is going to make good His words.

If we let Him - for we can prevent Him, if we choose -

The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what he said.”

Where did the highly respected C.S. Lewis get such doctrine?

From the Bible, which teaches us that we can indeed put on the divine nature and mature as sons and daughters of God, becoming like Him.

“14 For as many as are lead by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.... 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God; 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified together; 18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

Religion Moderator Guidelines

Ecumenic threads are closed to antagonism. To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.

Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenic” thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable. More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.

Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.

Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenic” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.

Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.

Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.

Let me tell as an ex-Mormon. I love the people of the church and their culture.

But their doctrine is polluted and ridiculous. Joseph Smith was a thief and a pedophile. Brigham Young said the blood of Christ never saved anyone..."you must spill your own blood." Their God inhabits a body of flesh "as you and I have" and occupies a planet where he and his wife spread their seed which is born then on earth.

They baptize for the dead - it is their big claim to fame. Thus the emphasis on geneology and temple rights. They search records to find their long dead ancestors so they can go to the temple and be baptised in their stead. SICK, SICK, SICK! As Alister Begg has said...."no one was ever saved by something someone else did for them."

The Bible says trust in Jesus and you will be saved. When a disciple asked how to be saved he was told..."believe in the one whom God has sent." The Mormon prophets teach that Jesus is not the only Son of God, with God from the beginning and the one through which all things were made. They teach every one can echieve godhood as Jesus did.

They believe ..."God has a body of flesh as you see I have." NUTS, NUTS, NUTS.

And to top it aff they go door to door telling Chrsitians that they have an "apostate" faith and need to become Mormon to be saved.

Then they get bent when someone exposes their crazy beliefs.

For starters, the author, Jeff Lindsay is not an apostle, prophet or even a 70. He is not authorized to speak for the mormon church in any fashion. Therefore, his words only reflect his OPINION and as such are worth little to the topic.

He speaks towards the Orthodox and related doctrine of Theosis which he states is “holding that man can become like God”. As such he has already rendered his apologetic regarding mormon exaltation. It is already been well established that the Christian concept of theosis is not the same as Lindsey is alleging. Christian sites such as

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis

make it very clear that the mormon use of the term is not compatible with the orthodox. As such, his attempts to apply it are invalid.

Further note, lindsey attempts to use the writings of post apostolic church fathers to bolster his argument, such as St. Athanasius. Anyone knowledgeable about mormonism will be quick to point out that mormonism accuses these very same church fathers of leading the church into apostasy and corrupting all of its gospel doctrines and principles. Yet lindsey will use these very same church fathers to claim that the early church taught men can become gods. The double standard is very evident in this manner.

lindsay is famous for quasi intellectual argument for the smallest coincidence - that explains much of the other contortions he puts a reader through in the article.

Bottom line is that lindsey doesn’t even represent mormon doctrine well and his apologetic serves only to try to sugar coat an otherwise unpalatable mormon gospel.

From the article: Peter outlines some of the things we must do to make our calling and election sure - but it is only through the grace of Christ that such an opportunity exists.

An explanation of this "calling and election made sure" is therefor called for.

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 305:

Calling & Election To Be Made Sure

Contend earnestly for the like precious faith with the Apostle Peter, "and add to you faith, virtue," knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, charity [D&C 4]; "for if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Another point, after having all these qualifications, he lays this injunction upon the people "to make your calling and election sure." He is emphatic upon this subject--after adding all this virtue, knowledge, etc., "Make your calling and election sure." What is the secret--the starting point? "According as His divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness." How did he obtain all things? Through the knowledge of Him who hath called him. There could not anything be given, pertaining to life and godliness, without knowledge. Woe! woe! Woe to Christendom!--especially the divines and priests if this be true.

Salvation is for a man to be saved from all his enemies; for until a man can triumph over death, he is not saved. A knowledge of the priesthood alone will do this.

Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3:325-353.

But in the most express and proper usage of the terms, "The elect of God comprise a very select group, an inner circle of faithful members of the Church.... They are the portion of church members who are striving with all their hearts to keep the fulness of the gospel law in this life so that they can become inheritors of the fulness of the gospel rewards in the life to come.

"As far as the male sex is concerned, they are the ones, the Lord says, who have the Melchizedek Priesthood conferred upon them and who thereafter magnify their callings and are sanctified by the Spirit. In this way, 'They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God.' " (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., 217.) See Commentary 2: 267-269, 271-278, 283-285.

[4] What is meant by making an election sure?

It is with election as with calling: the chosen of the Lord are offered all of the blessings of the gospel on condition of obedience to the Lord's laws; and they, having been tried and tested and found worthy in all things, eventually have a seal placed on their election which guarantees the receipt of the promised blessing.

[5] What is meant by having one's calling and election made sure?

To have one's calling and election made sure is to be sealed up unto eternal life; it is to have the unconditional guarantee of exaltation in the highest heaven of the celestial world; it is to receive the assurance of godhood; it is, in effect, to have the day of judgment advanced, so that an inheritance of all the glory and honor of the Father's kingdom is assured prior to the day when the faithful actually enter into the divine presence to sit with Christ in his throne, even as he is "set down" with his "Father in his throne." (Rev 3:21

Link

SECOND ANOINTING or SECOND ENDOWMENT

This ordinance is so rare that many good Mormons do not even know that it exists. It is done only by invitation from the president of the church, to one married couple at a time. It is performed in the Holy of Holies room of the temple by one of the apostles of the church. Those who receive this ordinance are guaranteed of their salvation and exaltation in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. The man is anointed as "priest and king" (the wife is anointed "priestess and queen") and their "calling and election [to exaltation] is made sure." Part of the ceremony is performed by the couple in private in their own home, following instructions given during the temple ceremony, and includes the ceremonial washing of feet. One implication of the ceremony is that the recipients will have a personal visitation of Christ. In earlier days many devout Mormons received this ordinance, but since the 1920s it is extremely rare, and probably only given to those in high leadership positions in the church.

For a detailed description of this ceremony, click here.

Link

Ecumenism or oecumenism mainly refers to initiatives aimed at greater Christian unity or cooperation. It is used predominantly by and with reference to Christian denominations and Christian Churches separated by doctrine, history, and practice. Within this particular context, the term ecumenism refers to the idea of a Christian unity in the literal meaning: that there should be a single Christian Church.

The word contrasts with interfaith dialogue or interfaith pluralism aimed at unity or cooperation among diverse religions and referring to a worldwide 'religious unity' by the advocacy of a greater sense of shared spirituality.

Ecumenism is the movement within Christianity that aims at "the recovery in thought, in action, and in organization, of the true unity between the Church's mission to the world (its apostolate) and the Church's obligation to be one."[1]

Thus, ecumenism is the promotion of unity or cooperation between distinct religious groups or denominations of Christianity.

Ecumenism is distinguished from and should not be misused to mean interfaith pluralism.

The interfaith movement strives for greater mutual respect, toleration, and co-operation among the world religions.

Interfaith dialogue between representatives of diverse faiths, does not necessarily intend reconciling their adherents into full, organic unity with one another but simply to promote better relations.

If we are to have an ecumenical, interfaith discussion, it would be fair to take quotations fairly. For example, the quotation from CS Lewis distorts his meaning.

"Each of the Lewis citations have been taken out of their contexts and twisted. In addition, frequently in his writings about humanity’s eternal destiny, he carefully clarifies the eternal and impassible gulf between the only Creator and His creatures, including humans.
In the first quote, Lewis’s context comes in a chapter called “Counting the Cost,” and describes the process of sanctification that God begins at the moment one becomes a Christian and will continue until we are reunited after death and the judgment with our resurrected bodies, when we will be “perfect,” that is, “complete,” as creatures. In fact, the sentence immediately preceding the Mormons’ favorite is “He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command.”18
In the same small volume he explains, What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God in the sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they are not things of the same kind. They are more like statues or pictures of God.19
In The Weight of Glory Lewis explains what he means by the perfection that God will work in us as we are sanctified, resurrected, and glorified. He distinguishes between God, the only Creator, and humans, even glorified, the created. In the beginning of the essay he explains,
The promises of Scripture may very roughly be reduced to five heads. It is promises, firstly, that we shall be with Christ; secondly, that we shall be like Him; thirdly . . . that we shall have “glory”; fourthly, that we shall, in some sense, be fed or feasted or entertained; and finally, that we shall have some sort of official position in the universe—ruling cities, judging angels, being pillars of God’s temple.20 Lewis’s positive assertions that we can never be deified in the Mormon sense come in a variety of forms. In his popular The Problem of Pain he notes,
For we are only creatures; our role must always be that of patient to agent, female to male, mirror to light, echo to voice. Our highest activity must be response, not initiative. To experience the love of God in a true, and not an illusory form, is therefore to experience it as our surrender to His demand, our conformity to His desire.21
Lewis notes the infinite chasm between Creator and creature when he describes, in the same book, the fall of humanity as “This act of self-will on the part of the creature, which constitutes an utter falseness to its true creaturely position, is the only sin that can be conceived as the Fall.”22 Lewis concludes The Problem of Pain with the glorious comparison:
As our Earth is to all the stars, so doubtless are we men and our concerns to all creation; as all the stars are to space itself, so are all creatures, all thrones and powers and mightiest of the created gods, to the abyss of the self-existing Being, who is to us Father and Redeemer and indwelling Comforter, but of whom no man nor angel can say nor conceive what He is in and for Himself, or what is the work that he “maketh from the beginning to the end.” For they are all derived and unsubstantial things. Their vision fails them and they cover their eyes from the intolerable light of utter actuality, which was and is and shall be, which never could have been otherwise, which has no opposite.23
Perhaps nowhere is Lewis’s consciousness of the utter difference between God and those made in His image greater than in his compelling science fiction trilogy, the Space Trilogy, consisting of three books, Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength.24 Lewis draws the reader into a world of time and space travel, alternate worlds, evil and technological destruction and good and selfless sacrifice. It is the story of all stories, the redemption story that began in Eden and, for this series, ends in post-World War II England: God has created us for glory. We have abandoned Him in favor of our own evil desires. He has done everything to redeem us to Himself. Will we respond in faith believing, inheriting the glory prepared for us? Or will we respond with continued self-worship and absorption, damned by our own idolatry to worship ourselves, gods beneath our own dignity? The first way is God’s way. The second—whether cloaked in pantheism, polytheism, the henotheism of Mormon theology, or the masterful guise of materialistic humanism—is not.
Endnotes: 1. C. S. Lewis, Beyond Personality (London: The Centenary Press, 1945), 48. Also contained in Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan Company, 1952), 174-175. 2. Lewis is misused by other individuals, religious movements, and organizations as well; and Mormons also attempt to defend their deification theology in other ways, such as comparing it to the nonheretical Eastern Orthodox theology of “theosis,” but the focus of this brief article is restricted to the Mormon use of Lewis’s writings for this purpose. For more information on these issues, see Richard and Joan Ostling’s Mormon America: The Power and the Promise (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1999), especially pages 307-314; “Grace and the Divinization of Humanity” at http://mysticalrose.tripod.com/grace3.html; and Kurt Van Gorden’s “Can Man Progress to Godhood?” at www.answers.org/Theology/Man_become_God.html. 3. Ted Olsen, “C. S. Lewis,” Christian History, no. 65 (spring 2000) in “The Ten Most Influential Christians of the Twentieth Century.” 4. Lewis died November 23, 1963, the same date as John F. Kennedy and Aldous Huxley. 5. Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1997). 6. In an article contributed by Robinson to editor Daniel H. Ludlow’s Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 5 vols. (New York: Macmillan Press, 1992). 7. Conference brochure, n.p., n.d. 8. John W. Kennedy, “Southern Baptists Take Up the Mormon Challenge” Christianity Today, 15 June 1998, 30. 9. Jay Copp, “Readers Cross Religious Lines for C. S. Lewis,” Christian Science Monitor, 23 May 1999, 19. 10. See www.signaturebooksinc.com/stranger.htm. 11. Despite its goals and the credentials of its contributors, there is no way to historically, evidentially, biblically, philosophically, or scientifically verify the fiction of Mormon history and theology. This, however, is not the forum for a critique of FARMS. 12. See www/farmsresearch.com/ free/qanda/basicissuesch5.html. 13. C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1949), 14-15. 14. For information see www.jersey.net/~inkwell/mormonet.htm. 15. Quoted from Richard and Joan Ostling, Mormon America: The Power and the Promise (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1999), 308. 16. Ibid., 307. 17. Ibid., 307-308. 18. Lewis, Beyond Personality, 48. 19. Ibid., 12-13. 20. Lewis, The Weight of Glory, 7. 21. C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1962), 51. 22. Ibid., 80. 23. Ibid., 153-154. 24. Available in various editions, including 1996 edition from Simon and Schuster.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.