Explore a hypothetical scenario contrasting two individuals being tested for readiness for godhood: one who blindly follows church teachings and another who questions, investigates, and chooses to act morally based on personal conviction rather than religious doctrine or rewards. Critical thinking, independence, and intrinsic morality align with qualities necessary for godhood, and a questioning individual would pass the divine test, not the follower. Blind following and avoiding questions does not lead to knowledge and theoretically, is not a quality of godhood.
Consider the Following
Let’s suppose for a few minutes that some of the teachings of the Mormon church are true; specifically:
- God exists,
- He has lots of spirit children living with Him in the Pre-Existence,
- There is a Plan of Salvation which calls for God’s spirit children to “grow up” and eventually become Gods like He is,
- Time has passed and His children have progressed to the point where they’re ready to be tested to see if they’re ready for Godhood,
and very importantly…. - God can’t properly test His children while they’re living with Him, knowing of His existence, and knowing of His plan for them. He must send them to a place separate from where He lives, and He must erase their knowledge of Him and His plan from their minds. Only under those conditions can they properly be tested to see if they have the qualities that are necessary to become Gods.
Now let’s suppose that two men are living here on Earth, the place that God has created to test them to see if they’re ready for Godhood. (We have to suppose that they’re men, because according to Mormon teachings, women can never become Gods, but let’s not go off on that tangent right now. To be sure, that’s a point well worth thinking about, but for now it’s a distraction from the issue at hand.)
One of the men has been taught by the church to believe that God exists, and to believe that God will reward people who do “good” things and will punish people who do “bad” things. The man sees lots of compelling evidence which strongly points to the conclusion that the church was founded on lies told by its originator a long time ago, but the church’s current leaders tell him to ignore that evidence and just have faith that whatever they’re telling him now is true. The man agrees to close his eyes to the inconvenient evidence and he simply does as he’s been told. One of the things the church’s leaders have told him is to be kind to the people around him, and so that’s what he does all throughout his life. He believes the church’s claim that God will reward him for behaving this way.
The second man is aware of the church’s claims regarding God and God’s alleged rewards and punishments, but he holds off on deciding whether or not to believe those claims. He sees the same evidence that the first man saw which strongly points to the conclusion that the church was founded on lies told by its originator a long time ago. Despite the church leaders telling him to ignore that evidence, the second man decides to investigate further. After long and careful study, he concludes that the church is not what it claims to be, and he walks away from it. However, the man does see value in the idea that we should be kind to the people around us. He does not believe that there’s any heavenly reward for behaving this way. In fact, he has now decided that God and heaven don’t even exist. He simply believes that the world will be a better place if people are kind to each other and so that’s what he does all throughout his life.
Both men die and end up standing before God to be judged. The second man finds this surprising, but he accepts it, shrugs, and says to himself, “Apparantly I was wrong about God. I wonder if I’ll be punished for rejecting Him and the church’s other claims.”
It’s important to remember that the reason these men were sent to Earth was to test them in order to see if they’re ready for Godhood. Which of them do you think passed the test?
I propose it’s the second man, not the first. A God doesn’t just follow where others have already led, blindly trusting that those others are going in the right direction. A God needs to blaze His own path through the universe. A God needs to think independently, to examine evidence and to make His own decisions based on that evidence. When the first man in our hypothetical test agreed to follow the counsel of the church leaders and close his eyes to the compelling evidence showing the church to be false, that man didn’t prove that he is ready to become a God. He proved that he’s NOT ready. A man who can pass the Godhood Readiness Test wouldn’t be so gullible that he would allow himself to be fooled into believing something to be true when there’s strong evidence showing that belief to be false… when the only “evidence” supporting the belief is just a warm feeling in his heart when he prays about it… especially when he knows that people in other churches get warm feelings in their hearts when they pray that are every bit as strong as the feelings that he might get when he prays.
Another reason why I propose that it’s the second man who passed the test rather than the first, is because a truly good person doesn’t do good things because they expect God to reward them for behaving that way. A truly good person is someone who does NOT expect to receive any reward in heaven for doing good things, but they do them anyway. A truly good person is someone who does good things solely because they believe that good actions will make the world a better place.
If God really does exist, and if He really did send us to Earth in order to test us to see if we’re ready to move on to the next stage in our eternal progressions… to become Gods ourselves… it’s the second man, not the first, to whom God will say, “Well done. You’ve passed the test.”
Blind Obedience vs. Moral Agency
- The Obedient Follower: The first individual adheres strictly to church teachings, follows leaders without question, and avoids deviation from prescribed paths. This person acts out of fear of punishment or desire for reward, rather than internal moral conviction.
- The Independent Questioner: In contrast, the second individual values critical thinking and moral autonomy. This person asks questions, seeks understanding, and evaluates actions based on their intrinsic moral value, even if it means disagreeing with church leadership.
The second individual’s approach demonstrates traits like courage, empathy, and intellectual honesty—qualities necessary for someone aspiring to godhood. These traits contrast with blind obedience, which suggests an underdeveloped moral compass reliant on external authority.
Qualities Necessary for Godhood
What qualities would a divine being value in future gods?
- Moral Integrity: Making decisions based on what is right, rather than fear or reward.
- Empathy and Compassion: Treating others with love and respect, independent of cultural or religious expectations.
- Critical Thinking: Seeking truth through investigation and understanding, even if it challenges existing beliefs.
Parallels with LDS Doctrine
There is an incredible emphasis on obedience within Mormon teachings. This does not align with the concept of exaltation or godhood. Submission to authority does not prepare someone for divine responsibilities. Personal growth and moral independence are more fitting measures.
Implications for Members and Ex-Members
- For Current Members: Practice self-reflection on whether blind obedience truly aligns with the path to godhood as envisioned in Mormon theology.
- For Ex-Members: Prioritize truth, personal integrity, and morality over conformity. Practice growth and readiness for higher responsibility.
Core Question
Is unquestioning obedience or moral autonomy better preparation for exaltation? Embrace questioning and personal integrity as strengths rather than weaknesses.
More reading:
This post is by Doug.
Hi, I'm Doug
I was a Mormon, but I've since repented of that.
