Mormons: Question


From what I understand, your church teaches that you will become gods.

Does that mean that one day you will be worshiped?


It’s funny you should ask that. I was just wondering such a thing about Mormons. I think they believe that God the Father was once a man like us, and that he achieved His Divinity somehow. (I could be wrong on this) Anyway, I was wondering why Mormons do not worship the others who have become gods? And why should one of those gods (God the Father) be worshipped and not the others?
Also, if God used to be no different than we are now, and we will eventually be as He is now, I don’t see why He should have the power to demand worship from us as He is then no different from us.


I’m not Mormon but let me contribute what little I know.

I believe that is more or less authoritative teaching but some Mormons seem to be unaware of it.

Anyway, I was wondering why Mormons do not worship the others who have become gods? And why should one of those gods (God the Father) be worshipped and not the others?

That’s a good question. I would guess that it is because the Heavenly Father is father to us his spirit-children whereas the other gods are not. So he has this special relationship with us (according to Mormonism) whereas the others do not. Kind of like how you have special affection for your father but not for other fathers even though they are fathers too. I’m guessing there’s more to it then that, hopefully a knowledgable Mormon will reply.

Also, if God used to be no different than we are now, and we will eventually be as He is now, I don’t see why He should have the power to demand worship from us as He is then no different from us.

My understanding of Mormon theology is that those who are exalted will have spirit-children of their own who would owe worship to their respective heavenly fathers just as we owe worship as spirit-children to our Heavenly Father. And then eventually our spirit-children become exalted and have their own spirit-children and so forth. It gives a picture of a wondrous and splendid progression from glory to glory and lines up fairly well with scriptures that speak of the glorification of the saints in heaven IMO.


As far as Mormon theology goes, the subject is highly speculative. While Mormons may believe many things beyond what is contained in scripture, scripture is the only authoritative exposition on official (canonical) theology. There is no Mormon scripture that states anything about what God was before he was God. Neither is there any scripture about what is involved in being a God (how that might effect who worships whom) other than that the family unit continues throughout eternity with the capacity to produce offspring. I think it is also instructive that no LDS scripture exists indicating a time when Christ was not already God.



That may be true, but Joseph Smith preached quite specifically on this very subject. He did not claim that he was speculating, so for you or anyone else to claim that he was speculating is not an accurate assessment of his public teaching. If we are to believe that Joseph was a true prophet, than we need to accept all of his teachings about God whether they were canonized as scripture or not. It is an everyday practice for Mormons to use talks given by their prophet and apostles as authoritative. Mormons are expected to heed the words of the prophet, not just the words that are canonized in scripture.


I also add a question to this if you don’t mind.

If, as other poster said, God was believed to be a man first, then … who created man in the first place?


Some Mormons believe in an infinite regression of Gods, one creating the other and each progressing to higher and higher levels of exaltation.


If the motive of a Mormon for joining the church is to be a god and be worshiped one day, I would personally say that this would be a very poor reason to join a religion. Self exaltation isn’t a virtue after all.


I didn’t say that Joseph Smith was speculating. I said that the subject is highly speculative–in response to the question: “Will individual Mormons be worshipped?”

If we are to believe that Joseph was a true prophet, than we need to accept all of his teachings about God whether they were canonized as scripture or not.

I think that’s fair, as long as you have an accurate representation of what he taught. The source of 99% of Joseph Smith’s teachings in this regard come from a 2 -1/2 hour funeral sermon recorded by four people and combined into one report. If you read it out loud, you can do so easily in about 30 minutes. That shows that only about 20% of the discourse was recorded. The question is, how accurately do the notes represent what Joseph Smith said?



I don’t know anyone who converted to Mormonism with the prospect of becoming deified. It isn’t on the minds of Mormons nearly as much as it is on the minds of its critics.



How about this from Brigham Young:

“I believe in the eternities of worlds, saints, angels, kingdoms, and Gods in eternity without beginning. I believe the Gods never had a beginning, neither the formation of matter, and it is without end; it will endure in one eternal round, swimming in space, basking, living, and moving in the midst of eternity. … Then can you, by any process of reasoning or argument, tell whether it was an apple that bore the first seed of an apple, or an apple seed that made the first apple? Or, whether it was the seed of a squash that made the first squash, or a squash that bore the first squash seed? Such abstruse questions belong to the philosophy of the world. In reality there never was and never will be a time when there was not both the apple and the apple seed.”



I have to challenge this. because we have applied the label “kong folett discourse” and seen it labeled “king follett funeral sermon” people seem to think it was joseph smith speaking at somoens funeral with just a few folks taking personal notes. This talk was given in general conference in front of thousands of people. LDSknow that when their prophet speaks in general conference it’s doctrine. Conference talks were and still are recorded by “official” “scribes” (my word not theirs) to make sure that those who couldn’t attend are made aware of what was taught. if there was error in the notes or what was later published then one would think that LDS authorities would have corrected. The fact that what was contained in that discourse was taught by other LDS authorities for years to come is telling in my opinion. at NO time have we seen ANY corrections to or denunciations of any of those items that are in that discourse. I think it safe to say that LDS doctrine is eternal progression. I think the definition of that is just what has been consistently printed in LDS lesson manuals that have quoted from the King Follett sermon (as well as other corroborating LDs sources). That is the doctrine that faithful LDs who “endure to the end” and reach “exaltation” (as opposed to mere salvation) will become Gods in the exact same definition that God the father is God. They will “organize matter” into their own worlds and will have spirit children who will populate said planets. The only “speculative” piece is who will be their savior? This doctrine requires that also that God the Father was once a man in the same way that we are on this earth and that he went through the same process that we do to achieve his “exaltation”. That’s not speculation in LDs doctrine. The only “speculative” piece is who was his savior? (well that and who his wives are and what they do) The Lds temples reinforce these doctrines and the current lesson manuals still teach them. the only thing I have heard or read coming from LDS leaders that could possibly be construed as anything less than full support of these doctrines ins Gordon Hinckley’s very questionable comments that “i don’t know that we emphasize that”.


I wanted to provide verifiable references for my previous post. It took awhile to get ht em from LDS sources. (don’t want to be seen quoting “anti-mormon” propaganda) here is the where the Kin gFollett discourse was published in the Ensign (official LDS magazine) in 1971. you can see that as late as that it is obvious what doctrinal impact this talk still has.:

part 1 :

part 2:


That sounds like a fair argument. However, it is also possible that the four accounts were harmonized such that redundant material was removed. Also, there would necessarily be a difference in pace between a delivered speech before thousands, without aid of sound reinforcement, and a speech read off a paper in front of a mirror.


That may be. But… about six months ago, my fiance’s eldest son, returned from a mission to Mexico almost two years ago, found opportunity to witness Mormonism to me one evening as we stood next to my trailer loading trash into it. First words out of his mouth: “What would you think of becoming a god?”

I told him point-blank that that idea is blasphemous, and there ended the conversation about Mormonism, and I have noticed that he’s moving gradually away from the religion since then.

so it may be that many, or most Mormons don’t give much thought to the idea of becoming gods, but this one young Mormon man certainly did.


and it answers most questions posed by those curious of its beginnings. The plague of denial and misinformation haunts it to this day. Although it is being presented as a ‘kinder,gentler mormonism’ these days, the beginnings speak for themselves.
Many churches have spotted histories, but when a particular church has made a hobby of calling the Original Church a whore, then it begs the question: "WHO will cast the first stone?"
I probably won’t be back again for a long time, but I offer this caution for anyone even remotely considering even a brief affair with the mormon church. Be careful where you throw your pearls.,M1
I’ll bear you MY testimony:
One Church, One Body, One God!!!:thumbsup:
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Communion of Saints
AND the Holy Catholic Church. and I will take it to my
last breath. NO so-called, self-proclaimed lord’s annointed and elect will EVER rule my life again!!! Thanks be to GOD~~~


I think we need to put to rest any notion that the King Follet Sermon is somehow inaccurate of what Joseph preached at General Conference. The LDS Church has never claimed it to be inaccurate, and as Majick has pointed out the church has continued to teach these things in recent times. It is therefore unreasonable for any individual Mormon to suggest that the written record of the sermon to be inaccurate. To do so is really only an attempt to create ambiguity as to whether or not Joseph really taught these very odd doctrines. Thank you Majick for your comments and referrences–they certainly help clear up any ambiguity on the subject.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit