On Personal Revelation and God-Making
This post may not be read for some time (much less commented upon) due to my lack of updating the blog. But hopefully some will see this and comment thoughtfully on it.
I think it is a fair assumption that there is a common belief in LDS theology that one major purpose for this life (perhaps THE major purpose) is training and instruction in preparation to become gods; in other words, this life is a crucial part of the process of human deification.
It is additionally a common belief in LDS theology that human deification is God’s overarching purpose as well–the well-known scripture from Moses 1:39, as well as other scriptures, being cited for support.
Though I have some experience researching Mormon historical theology, I don’t know offhand where the genesis of this idea–that this life is for god-training– is located. In Rough Stone Rolling Bushman asserts that, essentially, Joseph Smith clearly taught this idea (I don’t have access to the book right now for citation).
Assuming that this is the case–that this common LDS belief is not merely common but also the truth–what purpose does revelation serve? I am thinking here of personal revelation specifically more than revelation in general. To put it another way, how does personal revelation assist human beings in training and instruction to become gods? The answer may at first appear intuitively obvious: personal revelation from God is one major way that God instructs us in the God-making process. However, this isn’t necessarily so. Consider the following.
In 1981 Elder Oaks gave what I believe is considered a landmark sermon on the subject: Revelation.In this talk he gives 8 reasons for the purpose of revelation: 1) to testify; 2) to prophesy; 3) to comfort; 4) to uplift; 5) to inform; 6) to restrain; 7) to confirm, and 
to impel. He then provides details and examples of each of these categories.
Now, all of these can be seen as having at least indirectly to do with the process of deification. But there is certainly no direct reference in Elder Oaks’s talk to personal revelation explicitly being involved in the god-making process. In fact, though I haven’t time for a detailed study, I would bet that almost all references to receiving personal revelation in general Church literature and Conference addresses have nothing directly to do with “training and instruction” to become gods. I would also be willing to bet that when the subject of human deification is addressed in these fora, A) it is almost never the main thesis or subject of the talk or article/sermon, etc. (this phenomenon itself should be the subject of another long post) and B) it is never more than superficially addressed. Nevertheless, this seems to be more than merely a cultural over-belief. Am I wrong?
That being long-windedly said, consider the following illustration.
I know a person who prays about nearly everything, from whether to allow her son to play soccer, to the type and quantity of Christmas presents each of her children receives each year. If there is ever a question in her mind or any type of problem in her life, no matter how mundane, you can bet she has said a prayer over it and 9 times out of 10 has received a divine answer. This is her experience with personal revelation.
Elder Oaks mentions this type of personal revelation in his speech (I believe he uses the example of praying over which type of lima beans to buy at the grocery store, or something similar) and not surprisingly declares it to be inappropriate and not partaking of the true nature or purpose of personal revelation (which is…?)
The person I mentioned in the illustration above believes that she has a strong, intimate relationship with God, based in large part on this frequent receipt of personal revelation. I would never begrudge her that, nor am I in any sort of epistemological or ethical position to deny her the nature and fruit of her relationship with God. And though I personally disagree with approaching both prayer and Deity in such a (frivolous?) way I am sometimes guilty of not praying enough, and of being too casual in my prayers.
But assume that she does receive divine revelation from God on all the minutiae of her life. Does this have anything to do with training and instruction to become gods? When God answers her that she should not buy that Easy-Bake oven for her daughter but purchase a Hannah Montana workout video instead, is the purpose of god-training being served in any way, even indirectly? In response, one might say that God is not so narrow-minded. Why couldn’t God answer this prayer, which has nothing to do with such a high-minded purpose, but still be working toward the exaltation of this person at the same time? After all, there seems to be ample evidence that multi-tasking is something God has no problem with. Plus, such a divine communication, no matter how apparently frivolous, might still fit one or two of Elder Oaks’s criteria (information, confirmation, maybe even comfort). Thirdly, she is His child, is she not? What supplication of a child will go unnoticed or ill-considered by an all-Loving Heavenly Parent? Might seem frivolous to you, but not to Him (or to her, for that matter).
I can understand these responses, and even empathize with them. However, I’m still in the dark in trying to make the connection. My friend in large part has developed the theological notion that God is, above all else, a magic 8 ball. In essence, she “uses” God in such a way that God is basically the all-knowing Information-Provider, providing ready answers for all life’s questions, whether hum-drum or high-brow. Perhaps my friend would argue that her life experiences are what provide her the opportunity to shape her life toward eventual godhood. But then, does personal revelation play any major role at all in this process?
Nevertheless, I don’t view personal revelation in such a way, and neither do may Mormons. But even if personal revelation is a more intimate, even more infrequent process (in that God allows us in large part to provide our own meaning to our experiences and we should bring to pass much righteousness of our own will) is there an obvious connection with human deification? If so, why is it not expounded more often?
November 15, 2008 at 7:33 pm
I don’t know how the smiley face with the sunglasses got in there. I promise there is no subliminal meaning. Please ignore!
November 16, 2008 at 1:09 am
It’s good to see you posting again Jacob.
As I understand it, you are inquiring into the relationship between deification and personal revelation and proposing that the relation can be through of as direct and indirect. You point out that the eight purposes given by Elder Oaks “can be seen as having at least indirectly to do with the process of deification” but you don’t think anyone speaks about personal revelation as having a direct relation with deification. The first issue needing clarification is the criteria for deciding whether something directly or indirectly bears on the process of deification. How do you know whether something directly relates to the process, and how do you know whether it relates only indirectly? This seems difficult to answer and I’m not certain this is a useful distinction.
In working through this idea, perhaps it might be useful to examine the issue from broader context of Latter-day Saint soteriology. Elder Oaks in his October 2005 talk “Priesthood Authority in the Family and the Church” taught that “In our theology and in our practice, the family and the Church have a mutually reinforcing relationship. The family is dependent upon the Church for doctrine, ordinances, and priesthood keys. The Church provides the teachings, authority, and ordinances necessary to perpetuate family relationships to the eternities.” He stated further that “The ultimate mission of our Savior’s Church is to help us achieve exaltation in the celestial kingdom, and that can only be accomplished in a family relationship.” So, it might be that there are other things that more directly (to use your term) bear on deification, namely ordinances and priesthood. Furthermore, taking the notion of exaltation as only being possible within relationships and applying this to our relationship with God as well, then it could be argued that personal revelation that enhances our relationship with God and others can’t be seen as having anything other than a direct bearing on deification.
December 16, 2008 at 1:49 am
Your friend sounds emotionally driven. Not to take anything away from her personal feelings, but some people follow natural emotion through means of prayer rather than tapping into real personal revelation which is truly rare in my personal experience. It’s hard to distingush between the two. It’s not that God doesn’t care but that he cares enough to let us learn and grow by making many choices (especailly the day to day ones) on our own. I think most of the time we are not ready to recieve revelation. Our minds, hearts and hands must be pure, our faith must be pure with all doubt erased. You really have to be in a spiritually tuned state to recieve revelation. When you look back at the life of Joseph Smith and his revelations he could only ever recieve them when he was truly prepared, and we’re talking about a prophet now, so you catch my drift. Prayer is more of a comfort and meditative time to your friend then real revelation and I think that’s ok. Why not, it’s another purpose for prayer anyway. plus who are we to judge what is real and true? Maybe it is revelation, some people have these gifts to really communicate with God freely beacuse of who and what they are.
Exaltation is becoming like God and attaining to all he has and all his knows and to be where he is and live the type of life he lives. (An esteemable idea) Our deification may take eons after this mortal exsistence but we are still on the path to progression and Godhood as far as I can distinguish from the teachings of Joseph Smith. He did say he would go from a king to a priest and so on. I think the details of our full path are just unclear as of yet but we will come to discover it all soon enough.
December 18, 2008 at 12:28 am
Sorry for the delayed response. I’ve been studying for my Law Finals. But I appreciate the comments.
Aquinas:
This specific distinction may not be obviously useful, but relating major Gospel principles and doctrines to one another is vital if we are to maintain any sort of coherency concerning what we believe. Saying that they “directly or indirectly” bear on one another is simply another way of saying that there is a relational connection among them. If we parse theological principles in such a way that we think that showing direct or indirect connections among them is not ultimately useful, we run the risk simply being irrational about what we believe (or at least of not thinking carefully about what we believe). I think you would agree that there are intimate and rational connections between and among the various doctrines and concepts that make up the Gospel. If not, we try to make those connections anyway every time we seek to explain the Gospel to others and to ourselves.
I agree with you that there are certainly many other things in the Gospel that bear on or relate to deification within Mormonism. I wasn’t trying to suggest otherwise. I was merely trying to establish a connection between personal revelation and human deification. The crucial aspect of my questions relates to the possibility of a more direct connection rather than simply (and more indirectly) asserting, through a logical transitive set that exaltation has to do with our relationship with God, and so does prayer/personal revelation, so therefore revelation is connected to exaltation. It would seem to me that if God takes seriously our eventual exaltation, then revelation from Him would have to bear directly on this goal.
Gunner:
I would agree about my friend’s emotional dependence on her theory of personal revelation. In her interpretation there is really no room for personal growth through making a personal, independent decision. But this is part of my wariness for this view of prayer and revelation: how can we someday expect to become beings like our Heavenly Parents, able to help and influence others and plan and make decisions, etc, if we have spent our time merely asking for directions and then simply obeying them when they come? Any sort of deification would not seem like something we would be comfortable with. We would be much more content to sit in God’s presence and do nothing of our own will.
Then again, this communitarian view of subordination of wills to the will of the Father (something the scriptures are clear was a main teaching and practice of Jesus) is a major part of our doctrine. It may be most accurate to say that even what it means to live the life of a god is still very debatable. We haven’t yet come to an understanding of what it means. Nevertheless, we are to do things of our own wills and bring to pass much righteousness. The middle path, as always, seems the safest and truest.
December 22, 2008 at 2:28 am
I believe that you have touched upon one of the greatest hallmarks of the Restoration of the Gospel, i.e., that our relationship with our Heavenly Father is not only paternal but also as joint-heirs with His Firstborn and our Saviour Jesus Christ. In the Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis put it more succinctly, “…the Enemy (God) wants servants who will becomes sons.” In my perhaps myopic view of the Gospel, this could well be the essential definition of a ‘true’ Christian, “Do you believe that you are truly a son/daughter of God who has the divine potential through faith and obedience to the principles and ordinances of the Gospel to become an eternal perfected being in whom the there is no sin?” This fact need not necessarily be constantly elicitated as it likely understood by the vast majority of active and studious Latter-day Saints.
The issue of personal revelation is, from my perspective, a bit more complex. It is true that the Gospel counsels us to pray without ceasing and make virtually everything a matter for prayer, but I think that our Father doesn’t intend for us to interpret that to mean, Move over, I’ll drive.” Rather, I feel that we are inviting Him to assist our analytical thought processes by giving us inspired nudges to get beyond ’seeing through a glass darkly’ as Paul puts it. This process teaches us to view issues, decisions and crises from an eternal prespective. It also serves to put us in greater harmony with our Heavenly Father. It has been my experience that Heavenly Father readily and fully understands the needs of His children with regard to inspiration and revelation. Some need more than others. Sometimes revelation (but not spiritual support) is withheld so that the person can struggle and grow on their own. Othertimes, it is given to strengthen a person’s testimony. Some individuals may be seen by our Heavenly Father as not needing the repeated affirmation of Divine approbation and attention. But rest assured, you will get what you need, (from His perspective), if you diligently seek Him and His guidance in your life and are worthy (or trying to grow in worthiness). You may not realize this until you look back in retrospect. Our Father in Heaven knows us better than we know ourselves and He tailors His blessings, support, communications and miracles to our individual needs. Everything that He does is to maximize our individual growth without usurping our free agency. After all, “…God will force no man to Heaven.”
December 25, 2008 at 12:53 am
Jacob, thanks for the interaction. It’s possible I’ve misunderstood your post. I’m not saying we shouldn’t contemplate on relationships between gospel principles. Rather, I understood you to be suggesting that we can categorize relationships between doctrines as ‘direct’ and as ‘indirect’ and that these relationships are different in some way. What I wrote is that I’m “uncertain” how useful it is to place relationships between two gospel principles into a direct category and an indirect category without first proposing some sort of criteria for placing these relationships into one category as opposed to the other.
In your response to me you write:
This suggests that the adjective directly and indirectly have the same effect, which is not how I understand the terms. To say something has a direct relationship means that the logical connection is stronger or closer in proximity than other relationships. To say something bears indirectly is to say the relationship is relatively weaker or more distant in proximity than other relationships, or that it relies on an inference. If we can describe a relationships between two gospel principles as simultaneously direct and indirect, then how useful is this description? This is my critique.
For example, is sin best described as being directly related to forgiveness or the fall or creation or the atonement or Christ, or indirectly related? Is it ‘indirectly’ related to the fall but ‘directly’ related to disobedience? And what is my reason for choosing direct over indirect? And if I don’t have any reasons, how useful is this description? This is my critique.
Again, it’s possible I just misunderstood your post. Maybe you are suggesting that typically people don’t see any connection to personal revelation and deification and you are arguing that we should think about the relationship. If this is the case then let me make clear I’m definitely not saying that it is fruitless to consider the relationship between personal revelation and deification. Rather I’m saying I’m “uncertain” whether describing doctrinal relationships as direct and indirect is useful without first elaborating the reasons for choosing ‘direct’ vs. ‘indirect.’ My comment was designed as an opportunity to perhaps further flesh out that idea. If you aren’t arguing that some relationships are direct and some are indirect, then I misunderstood you and my critique doesn’t apply.
December 29, 2008 at 10:33 pm
I apologize for not responding to your comments sooner. The Christmas holiday has (thankfully) interrupted the normal flow of routine.
Velikiye Kniaz:
I agree generally with your points, though I was looking for more of a discussion of the connection between revelation and god-making. There is usually universal agreement that both doctrines discussed in my post are major LDS theological doctrines that deserve the prominence they have.
Aquinas:
It may very well be that using adjectives like “direct” and “indirect” is not useful, but in the sense that it makes any criteria that we might use for establishing a connection between two doctrines even more ambiguous and vague. I was wrong for trying to utilize the distinction of direct and indirect in order to simply say that that two doctrines are connected in some fashion. I was not suggesting that we figure out what the criteria for establishing “direct” criteria and “indirect” criteria, but rather attempting to say that that we should in fact be more reflective about the connections there may be between personal revelation and deification.
In other words, I created more confusion by using those adjectives. I am in fact suggesting, as you say, that people do not typically see or elaborate any connection whatsoever between the two doctrines and that we should think more carefully about what such a relationship would consist of. I chose these two particular doctrines for their prominence in Mormon thought. I started from the premise articulated by Joseph Smith that this life is for training and instruction to become gods. One major method for receiving such instruction would be through personal revelation. But in order for personal revelation to be useful in achieving the goal of deification, it seems that we must conceptualize and practice it in a certain way; or, that we must exclude certain ways of conceiving and practicing personal revelation (like the way my friend sees personal revelation in the post). Otherwise, it is extremely difficult to posit any connection whatever and personal revelation seemingly becomes mutually self-indulgent on our part and God’s (merely for comfort only? To solve puzzles and mysteries without any sort of telos?) But then, does this point to a limited way of viewing personal revelation? Anyway, thanks for clarifying my original point.