Thanks!
Laurel & Doug

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.

In your response to me you write:

Saying that they “directly or indirectly” bear on one another is simply another way of saying that there is a relational connection among them.

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.

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.

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.

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.