A Latter-day Saint (LDS) missionary posed some interesting comments and questions (provided in quotes). Let me share my responses with the intent of bringing light.
“I just watched your most recent video about Theology”
For clarity I am interacting with LDS Philosopher Blake Ostler’s views and traditional LDS theology proper.
“as far as the topic of becoming like God have you considered the following analogy? There's a father and a son. The son grows up and gets married and has a daughter. So that makes the original son's identity change to father. Does that make him equal with his father? Some would argue yes but we would now also attribute the title grandfather to the son's father. In so doing the son has glorified the father. “
Given the offered human analogy it is not merely an identity or status change. It is an ontological change—or more precisely a relational change. There is, in fact, an intrinsic and extrinsic change that obtains. An intrinsic change causes an extrinsic change. The human father intrinsically produces the human son. The human son depends upon the human father for the son’s existence and personal identity. Whereas the the human father depends upon the son for his personal identity but not existence. A human father and human son both gain a new relation and personal identity. But this is quite a separate point. In my video, I make the point that on traditional LDS theology Heavenly Father must create to actualize his full potential as Heavenly Father. Often this is expressed as the doctrine of eternal increase. Heavenly Father depends in some way upon his children to reach his full potential, namely having as many children as possible which worship him directly or indirectly and contributes (in some way, shape or form) to Heavenly Father’s actualized potential in knowledge, relations and personal identity. Relations in LDS theology would not merely be a dependence or causal relation but rather procreation.
As to the point of equality. Humans are all derived (ie. owes/borrows their existence from other humans)—except Adam and Jesus. So the analogy breaks down at a crucial point. But I can agree that all humans are equal. Ostler’s kingship monotheism seems to apply this to the LDS Godhead.
In the video I argue that if Heavenly Father alone becomes the organizer of eternal pre-existing matter to form the Son, Jesus, who is the one that organizes the eternal pre-existing matter to form the actual world. The Father alone is eternally organized while the Son is unorganized but then organized by the Father (on some accounts through procreating with his organized wife).
Ostler sees the problem of an infinite regress in traditional LDS theology thus he denies Heavenly Father is created or formed by an infinite chain of prior gods.
Peter Kreeft illustrates,
"Suppose I tell you there is a book that explains everything you want explained. You want that book very much. You ask me whether I have it. I say no, I have to get it from my wife. Does she have it? No, she has to get it from a neighbor. Does he have it? No, he has to get it from his teacher, who has to get it. . . et cetera, etcetera, ad infinitum. No one actually has the book. In that case, you will never get it. However long or short the chain of book borrowers may be, you will get the book only if someone actually has it and does not have to borrow it. Well, existence is like that book. Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect. If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it. But we did get it. We exist. We got the gift of existence from our causes, down the chain, and so did every actual being in the universe, from atoms to archangels. Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, God."
Ostler denies traditional LDS theology of heavenly mother since it implies an infinite regress. Or at least an odd relationship in which Heavenly Father must create Heavenly Mother in order to be Heavenly Father and procreate. Ostler seems to say Heavenly Father is an eternal uncreated being with many others that initiate the law of eternal progression.
I actually think by definition God is that being which no greater can be conceived. So I take God to be fundamental—uncaused, uncreated, underived and does not depend upon anyone or anything external to God’s nature. So asking if humans can become like God is like asking can squares be circles. By definition they are qualitatively different in the relevant ways. Humans are created they cannot become uncreated. In the case of Christ, Christians historically affirmed by Holy Writ Christ has two natures divine and human—conjoined and possessed by the one person.
“Is God a uniform status? Are all God's equal?”
I take God as fundamental. God is uncreated and the sole source of all reality. I deny there are many Gods. I affirm a form of traditional biblical, and historical Trinitarian monotheism. But I do admit to Dr. Michael Heiser scholarship and acknowledge a divine counsel. The heavenly hosts, namely, angels, make up God’s counsel. But angels are not properly speaking gods since they are created—thus creatures—and depend upon God.
But I argue in my video, Ostler’s view entails Heavenly Father is superior to all other gods, including the Son.
“I can't say I honestly know but I know the father's glory in the analogy is increased by the son.”
If what you say were true then Heavenly Father grows or increases in glory. But if Heavenly Father grows or increases in glory then Heavenly Father needs his Son to reach his full potential as God. This can be avoided if aseity is affirmed. But traditional LDS theology lacks the resources to affirm divine aseity.
