Here you are making a claim about Mormon doctrine, when you do not understand what that doctrine is and what it is not. We absolutely do not believe that we will ever be independent of God or no longer subject to Him. We do not believe that we will take away His glory, but we only add to it by following Christ. For us, there is and always will be a need to be subject to God the Eternal Father, the Almighty God, the "God of gods and Lord of lords," as Deuteronomy 10:17 puts it. He is the One whom we worship and always will worship.Mormonism teaches that God is not the only deity and that we all have the potential of becoming gods.
To those who follow Christ and receive His grace and power, great promises are extended. We are promised that we can receive "the fullness of God" through the grace of Christ (Ephesians 3:19). Christ said that we can become one with Him, as He is one with the Father (John 17:20-23). Paul said that Christians can become "joint heirs with Christ" and be glorified with Him (Romans 8:14-18). He challenged us to pursue the example of Christ "who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Philippians 2:5,6). Peter said that through Christ, we can "put on the divine nature" and receive great and precious promises (2 Peter 1:3-4). Those who follow Christ can become "like Him" (1 John 3:2), can "inherit all things" (Rev. 21:7), and can be kings and priests before God (Rev. 1:6), sitting with Christ in His throne (Rev. 3:21). Critics, how do you explain away such scriptures? They disclose an important aspect of early Christianity, the doctrine of "theosis," holding that man can become like God.
The term "gods" is what God Himself has chosen to describe the divine potential of His sons and daughters. The possibility of multiple "godlike" beings seems to be what Paul referred to when he said there are "gods many and lords many, but to us there is but one God, the Father" (1 Cor. 8:5,6). It also seems to be what David meant in Psalm 8:4,5 when he said that man is "a little lower than the gods." The King James Version (and most translations) gives "lower than the angels," but the Hebrew word is "elohim" which means "gods." Commentators have long explained that this term, literally meaning "gods," is describing angels - divine beings serving or representing God.
The existence of other godlike beings is suggested by multiple scriptures that describe God as a "God of gods" (Deut. 10:17; Joshua 22:2, and Psalm 136:2). That phrase makes no sense if false pagan gods are meant, but perhaps it refers to angels as gods. Psalm 82:1 likewise says that God "standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods." Scholars know that the ancient Jews, including those in New Testament times, that angels were often described as "gods."
A particularly interesting example is found in Psalm 82:6: "Ye are gods; and all of you children of the most High." Christ repeated that scripture in John 10:34-36 to defend Himself against charges of blasphemy:
In other words, if the scriptures label mortals who receive the law (and thus represent God) as "gods," then why should the Jews be outraged when Christ says He is the Son of God? Christ pointed out that Psalm 82:6 was not a mistake or a fluke, for He added the phrase "and the scripture cannot be broken" right after it, stressing that it was accurate and that its meaning could not be argued away.Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
If the Bible can use the term "gods" in to describe non-ultimate but heavenly, angelic beings who represent God, then Bible-believing people should not be outraged when Mormons use that term in much the same way. Our use of the term is clearly in a limited sense, referring to angelic, resurrected beings who receive great blessings and power from God, but remain subject to Him and serve and worship Him forever.
In the second century Saint Irenaeus, the most important Christian theologian of his time, said
Clearly, in the 2nd century, the belief that we can become what Christ is himself was a Christian belief. Why not now? He went on to say[T]he Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.
Also in the second century, Saint Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god."Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, "I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High." ... For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality."
Clement also said that "if one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God.... His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes a god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus was right when he said, 'Men are gods, and gods are men.'"
Finally, Saint Augustine himself, the greatest of the Christian Fathers, said: "But he himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. 'For he has given them power to become the sons of God' [John 1:12] If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods."
This doctrine was a part of historical Christianity until relatively recent times, and it is still an important doctrine in some Eastern Orthodox churches.
