An Interesting Post Apostolic Belief

[Mudcat]

Glad you enjoyed it. I felt like you were using my post against my religion, so I just tried to play along.

IMO, Rhino had it coming Eguz.

He should have known better than to respond to you in context.

[Zakuska]

I just wrote a paper last semester on deification in Irenaeus which has been read by a few LDS people on the boards here. Irenaeus clearly distinguished God's nature from man's nature, and taught that man will be made into the perfect image of God, but not becoming God by nature. After all, for the vast majority of the early church fathers, an integral part of God's nature is being uncreated, which by definition is impossible for a created human being to possess as part of his human nature.

Ah yes but if im not mistaken Rhino this subject was hotly debated even amongst them. Some even speaking of the created part of Christ becoming by nature uncreated.

[rhinomelon]

Ok. You seem like a nice guy. Sorry about that.

No problem, message boards are notoriously bad for effectively communicating about touchy subjects. I've done the same thing myself!

So, I mean, I made statements that were anti (against) mainstream Christian doctrine above, and I'd have no problem being called anti-mainstream Christian. What's the big deal with anti-Mormon? If you are against what we believe, wouldn't you want to be seen as anti-(whatever it is)?

In your sense of the term, I would be fine with the "anti-Mormonism" label (note: not "anti-Mormon", which would be against the people). I love the LDS people, grew up in Utah and Idaho, and would love to live there again. I just disagree with LDS doctrine. Anyway, there have been entire threads about how to define "anti-Mormon", because there are more connotations associated with the term than simply being against something intellectually. Quite often, "anti-Mormon" brings to mind the more insulting, vile, hateful attacker who rails irrationally against the LDS church--in being called an anti-Mormon, I've been compared to the mob that assassinated Joseph Smith, or carried out the massacre at Haun's Mill. I bear no ill will or hatred for the LDS people at all (too many of them are good friends of mine!), so those connotations I reject when someone tries to apply them to me (which happens on occasion).

In your use of the term, I'm fine with being "anti-Mormonism", as you are fine with being "anti-mainstream Christianity".

Now, I hope that little explanation there doesn't derail the thread too much...

Take care, everyone

EDIT: CFR on that last post of yours, Zakuska. In any case, if there was debate about whether the uncreated became created, (or vice versa) that still assumes the central distinction between God and man that one finds throughout the early church. God is uncreated by nature, man is not. If this distinction weren't in play, why debate about it at all?

[Sentinus]

Ok. You seem like a nice guy. Sorry about that. But, I mean, anti just means against? Right? Like I grew up Catholic, and whenever anyone who was Protestant told me something negative about my (former) religion, I considered it anti (against)-Catholic. And sometimes I responded with insults or saying something anti (against) Protestant. So, I mean, I made statements that were anti (against) mainstream Christian doctrine above, and I'd have no problem being called anti-mainstream Christian. What's the big deal with anti-Mormon? If you are against what we believe, wouldn't you want to be seen as anti-(whatever it is)?Whatever. Anti means against.

Whatever. Anti means against.

Actually when discussing religious ideas many attach much more emotion to the word, research some of the threads here on "Anti Mormons" and you will find that many LDS feel the same. Just because someone speaks out about what they perceive the truth to be doesn't make them "against" or "anti" yet they are commonly called such.

Words are relative and if it simply means "Against" to you fine, but to many it is an emotionally charged word that implies malicious intent.

Regards,

Sentinus

[Sentinus]

Ah yes but if im not mistaken Rhino this subject was hotly debated even amongst them. Some even speaking of the created part of Christ becoming by nature uncreated.

I too am interested in your source material for this statement.

Regards,

Sentinus

[JLFuller]

Up until a few years ago... (Think 2002 Winter Olympics) the Idea of become a god, joint heir with Christ was totally absent from the dialog. I saw many protestor signs ridiculing Lorenzos couplet. You just don't see that much any more... I wonder why?

I think it is because most EV's are/were unaware of just how wide spread the theology of deification was in the early church and how much was written about it by early church fathers. Those writings have an impact. They may not have it all digested yet but I think the honest ones have to recognize that making fun of it seems out of place. I have to think that places like M** and C*** don't quite have the influence they once did - not to the honest in heart.

[livy111us]

I too am interested in your source material for this statement.

Regards,

Sentinus

Nibley went over this in his "Time Vindicates the Prophets" series.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=fairld...;view=playlists

I believe he pulled it from Origin, but cannot remember if it was an accurate quote or not...

[rhinomelon]

I think it is because most EV's are/were unaware of just how wide spread the theology of deification was in the early church and how much was written about it by early church fathers. Those writings have an impact. They may not have it all digested yet but I think the honest ones have to recognize that making fun of it seems out of place.

I pretty much agree here. Most evangelicals don't know a great deal about those early church concepts not found in the creeds. Deification was never a subject of a council or creed, so it doesn't really come up much. That's what I'm enjoying so much about studying this stuff, it's like a a whole new world that's familiar, and yet different. *cue Aladdin soundtrack*

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

Is everyone ready to leave the Catholic and Christian churches which have kept this mighty truth a secret?

And join the Eastern Orthodox, you mean?

Anyway, there's no evidence of any vast conspiracy to keep the doctrine a secret. It's been there the whole time, with people studying it and writing about it. Many well-known Protestants have actually done work on the subject (John Wesley and Martin Luther come to mind). Deification has not been suppressed; it's been there for anyone interested in it!

IMO, Rhino had it coming Eguz.

"Please, sir, may I have another !?"

[saemo]

Great collection of early Christian wisdom; thanks for doing the research.

Is everyone ready to leave the Catholic and Christian churches which have kept this mighty truth a secret?

Zemah

ah well, nothing has been kept secret. The OP just jumped over hundred of years of Christian writings to come up with "secrets".

Most often you will find theosis, in the Western Church, referred to as partaking of the divine nature.

This teaching is in in our liturgies, at every Mass. The Eucharist itself being a precursor to what we believe about being One with Christ.

In the Latin Rite, when the priest mingles a small amount of water with wine, he says:

"By the mystery of this water and wine, may we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity."

Along these same lines, Pope Leo XIII taught in Mirae caritatis (1902):

"For what can be more honourable or a more worthy object of desire than to be made, as far as possible, sharers and partakers in the divine nature? Now this is precisely what Christ does for us in the Eucharist, wherein, after having raised man by the operation of His grace to a supernatural state, he yet more closely associates and unites him with Himself. For there is this difference between the food of the body and that of the soul, that whereas the former is changed into our substance, the latter changes us into its own; so that St. Augustine makes Christ Himself say: "You shall not change Me into yourself as you do the food of your body, but you shall be changed into Me" (confessions 1. vii., c. x.)."

[ebeddoulos]

I take it you've never been to an Eastern Orthodox church.

Actually, I have on several occasions. I have also talked on this very subject with a young Orthodox priest in Chicago's O'Hare and as luck would have it on we were seated close together on the airplane ride to Atlanta. It was a very pleasant conversation and I came to understand that it would be helpful to be fluent in Greek to better understand some of the subtle yet defining differences between the Greek Orthodox doctrine of theosis and the LDS doctrine of exaltation. A few years later, I talked with a mostly-retired, Roman Catholic priest who was a part time chaplain at a hospital where we both worked. He was in his 80s, looked like he was in his 60s and was definitely one of the finest men I have had the pleasure of making a friend. I discovered that Latin retains some nuances in translation, as well. Basically, they felt that while the English translation is correct, the actual Orthodox and/or Catholic doctrine is not quite as explicit as the English translations of the Church Fathers comments makes it out to be. That said I am under the impression that the Orthodox is somewhat closer to LDS thought but I may be wrong in this assessment. I feel that these conversations have enriched my understanding of the LDS doctrine of exaltation.

[rhinomelon]

That said I am under the impression that the Orthodox is somewhat closer to LDS thought but I may be wrong in this assessment. I feel that these conversations have enriched my understanding of the LDS doctrine of exaltation.

The EO approach may be a bit closer to the LDS one, simply because deification is explicitly the goal of every Christian for them. But there are still foundational differences that contradict between the two. For instance, Eastern Orthodox are more careful about guarding the permanent distinction between God and man than pretty much anyone else. Even when deified, Orthodox believe that the deified human being will never see God as He really is, or comprehend Him entirely. Deified man will only participate in the divine "energies" of God, but never in His "essence" (a distinction that goes back to Gregory Palamas). This goes beyond even Catholicism, which maintains belief in the Beatific Vision, the seeing of God as He is.

For Orthodox, as well as all other mainstream Christians (including the earliest Christians), the deified Christian will never become God as the one true God is God. We will participate in God's divinity, as per I Peter 2; divinity will not become ours as a our own nature.

Take care, everyone

[Zemah]

ah well, nothing has been kept secret. The OP just jumped over hundred of years of Christian writings to come up with "secrets".

Most often you will find theosis, in the Western Church, referred to as partaking of the divine nature.

This teaching is in in our liturgies, at every Mass. The Eucharist itself being a precursor to what we believe about being One with Christ.

In the Latin Rite, when the priest mingles a small amount of water with wine, he says:

"By the mystery of this water and wine, may we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity."

Along these same lines, Pope Leo XIII taught in Mirae caritatis (1902):

"For what can be more honourable or a more worthy object of desire than to be made, as far as possible, sharers and partakers in the divine nature? Now this is precisely what Christ does for us in the Eucharist, wherein, after having raised man by the operation of His grace to a supernatural state, he yet more closely associates and unites him with Himself. For there is this difference between the food of the body and that of the soul, that whereas the former is changed into our substance, the latter changes us into its own; so that St. Augustine makes Christ Himself say: "You shall not change Me into yourself as you do the food of your body, but you shall be changed into Me" (confessions 1. vii., c. x.)."

Granted, the Body of Christ is a Holy Nation; by partaking of the sacrament in contrite repentance and in remembrance of His sacrifice we are forgiven of our sins, hence, made holy.

But I can assure you that when I was a Catholic I was never taught that Godhood in the form of eternal Fatherhood (and Motherhood) is available through the priesthood of God and Christ.

Are these promises in the Catholic catechism?

Does the Catholic church teach that our potentially divine nature can include being as God isâ?¦a Creator, a Progenitor of Spirits, a Savior, a Destroyer of worlds?

All of Christianity teaches a Sonship in God, that we are the sons and daughters of God. Only the LDS Church teaches from modern revelation that our divine kinship with God can progress into a divine Parenthood in Christ.

The Christian world has no doctrine related to what our divine nature looks like. That is the â??secretâ?? of which I speak that has not been verbalized by the Christian churches because they have denied modern revelation in the form of developing and growing volumes of scripture.

The fact of the matter is that the Catholic church seems so wrapped up in the â??mysticismâ?? that it has kept the flock ignorant of the simple truths. Whenever I read Catholic expletives of doctrine, it seems like a college theological dissertation. It lacks the Spirit of revelation, it lacks the sense of discovery, and it raises more questions than it answers.

The word of the Lord that was delivered through the prophet Joseph Smith answers the question of our divine nature: â??We shall be Godsâ?. Not in a polytheistic sense, but in a plural priesthood with multiple dominions around the universe. One God made up of a multitude of Priests, their wives, their children, and their extended families.

The word of the Lord in latter-day scripture goes on to describe the covenants we need to make in order to be made priests of God and Christ in this life and in the life after.

The doctrine of eternal progression rehearsed in our Lordâ??s disclosures to Joseph Smith and subsequent apostles, prophets, and priests of God in the LDS Church is the same promise God gave to Abraham; namely, the promise of â??descendants as numerous as the stars of heavenâ?.

Jews cling onto the promise of the land as their inheritance in Abraham; this promise has finite benefits since this world is not eternal. Christians and Muslims cling to their sonship in Abraham; the first as descendants of Israel in Judah and the second as descendants of Ishmael.

Only the LDS Church has a doctrine in place that gathers up Israel into its tribes, even as Moses gathered and counted them.

The Catholic and Christian churches are still in the â??pastoralâ?? mode of gathering His sheep. And what shepherds were they that when I left the flock let me walk through the wilderness of temptation and sin without a knock on the door? Only by the Spiritâ??s direct intervention was I guided to the true Church of Christ. Only by the Spiritâ??s voice did I learn of the Living God in revelation by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost.

Once I was in the true Church of Saints, then I could learn the promise of my own divine nature in God. This truth could not come out of the churches of men which deny an open canon of scripture.

The truth comes out of the LDS Church through direct revelation to its prophets.

The New Testament teaches that His true Church would have prophets; the Old Testament teaches that Israel is a nation of prophets. Only the LDS Church fits the description of a Church and an Israel in Christ.

The secret is out. The mystery is solved. Israel is glorified in Christ through His Church.

Zemah

[rhinomelon]

But I can assure you that when I was a Catholic I was never taught that Godhood in the form of eternal Fatherhood (and Motherhood) is available through the priesthood of God and Christ.

That's most likely because such teachings are not found in the catechism or in the early church fathers. "Eternal Fatherhood", especially in the sense that God the Father is the "Eternal Father", is utterly absent from the writings of the early church.

Only the LDS Church teaches from modern revelation that our divine kinship with God can progress into a divine Parenthood in Christ.

So I'm assuming you agree that deification in mainstream Christianity (both ancient and modern) differs tremendously from that taught by the modern LDS church?

Take care, everyone

[ebeddoulos]

So I'm assuming you agree that deification in mainstream Christianity (both ancient and modern) differs tremendously from that taught by the modern LDS church?

Take care, everyone

No. I for one do not agree. I will admit that deification in modern, so-called 'mainstream Christianity' differs in degree ranging from moderate to extreme "from that taught by the modern LDS church."

However, that which is taught by the LDS church does not differ in any significant manner from that taught by the ancient church.

[Zemah]

That's most likely because such teachings are not found in the catechism or in the early church fathers. "Eternal Fatherhood", especially in the sense that God the Father is the "Eternal Father", is utterly absent from the writings of the early church.

So I'm assuming you agree that deification in mainstream Christianity (both ancient and modern) differs tremendously from that taught by the modern LDS church?

Take care, everyone

What I am saying is that Catholics/Christians do not have the full truth and knowledge of a Fatherhood in Christ. They have the doctrine of a kinship with God that places them in the Body of Christ as the sons and daughters of God. They do not have the doctrine that promises to make them Fathers and Mothers in Christ.

If I am wrong about this difference, please show me the doctrine in Catholic writings.

Also, in regards to Israel as I defined my understanding of it in the LDS Churchâ?¦please show me the Catholic/Christian writings that place you in Israel as a descendant of Jacob.

I have read the Catholic Encyclopedia under the topic â??Israelâ? and it ends with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. I have yet to find any Catholic/Christian theology that places the faithful in Christ into the family of Jacob or into one of the tribes of Israel.

Again, please correct me if I am wrong; I do not claim to have done any thorough research into the subject, but from my own exposure to the teachings and preachings of Christendom there seems to be a real lack of subject matter related to where Christians fit into Israel.

Through what gates do Christians enter His Holy Jerusalem (Revelation 21:12-14)?

When Christ instituted baptism as the holy order under the Aaronic priesthood of John-the-Baptist, when the Apostles baptized the gentile in the name of Jesus Christ, and when Paul brought the ordinance to the pagan world, were they all not baptizing into Israel? And was not this new Israel rejected by the old world Jewish community.

So who is the true Jew? Are they those who for 2000 years and to this day reject Christ as their Messiah? Or does the title of being a descendant in the House of Judah truly belong to the believer in Christ, the King of the Jews?

Should the Catholic seek entry through the gate of Judah and the Protestant born of the Epistles of Paul walk through the gate of Benjamin?

The Jews that gather themselves into the nation of Israel in the Middle East, are they the true House of Judah outside of Christ? I think not; they deserve no such blessing as the lions share. Theirs are the blessings of the lesser tribes. They have made their own path as the descendants of Zilphah and Bilhah. Such is their glory in Christ, those who are slaves to the Law.

Will the descendants of Aaron be recognized as Levits?

Will the murders of the hope in prophets be numbered with Reuben and Simeon?

We know that the bulk of the LDS shall obtain refuge in the gate of Joseph as the descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh. The LDS shall direct the flow of Christâ??s people into His Holy Jerusalem. The prophets, priests, and patriarchs of the LDS Church shall make the determination in the Spirit of the Holy Ghost.

I can promise you that none shall enter except they be baptized into His Church.

The priests of God and Christ in their Fatherhood and Motherhood shall be the adoptive Parents of Godâ??s children in Israel. And women will fair better as a plural wife of a Melchizedek Priest than as a child of God; and men outside of the priesthood will remain outside of this higher glory in Christ.

It is not so much a matter of LDS scripture contradicting earlier scripture as it is an expansion of scripture into the new and glorious realms of Godhood understood.

Zemah

[rhinomelon]

However, that which is taught by the LDS church does not differ in any significant manner from that taught by the ancient church.

How would you respond to the quotes I posted earlier? It is unanimously accepted by scholars outside the LDS community that the concept of God and His nature in relation to human nature differs between ancient Christianity and the LDS church. Virtually every church father explicitly states that there is a permanent distinction between God and man (and those who do not state it explicitly certainly assume it), a distinction that is completely rejected by the LDS church. This distinction is absolutely foundational to any doctrine of deification, and the fact that this distinction is accepted by the ECF and rejected by the LDS points to markedly different doctrines of deification.

What I am saying is that Catholics/Christians do not have the full truth and knowledge of a Fatherhood in Christ. They have the doctrine of a kinship with God that places them in the Body of Christ as the sons and daughters of God. They do not have the doctrine that promises to make them Fathers and Mothers in Christ.

If I am wrong about this difference, please show me the doctrine in Catholic writings.

Since this "full truth" is missing from both the modern and ancient mainstream Christianity, I think you'd agree that deification means something very different to LDS than it does to mainstream Christianity.

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

Here is a section of Jordan Vadja's MA thesis on this subject, comparing the ancient Christian doctrine of theosis/deification to the LDS form. The entire document can be read in several sections on the FARMS website, here:

http://farms.byu.edu/authors/?authorID=435

The most profound difference between the doctrines of theosis and exaltation revolves around the way in which humans become divinized, or become gods. In the doctrine of theosis, divinization comes about through participation in the divine energies of the one divine nature, which divine nature is fully possessed by each of the three divine persons who comprise the Trinityâ??the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In the doctrine of exaltation, divinization comes about through growth of a capacity which is innate to the children born of Heavenly Parentsâ??the Father and his eternal companion. This differenceâ??the difference between participation and growthâ??can be rooted in two very different ontological understandings of divine nature and human nature.

The doctrine of theosis presupposes that there is a fundamental distinction between uncreated being and created being. God, that is, the three divine persons who are the one God, are understood to be uncreated and eternal. God always has been divine and always will be divine. Human persons, on the other hand, are created from nothingâ??creatio ex nihilo. They are forever dependent on God for existence. Thus, the divine nature, the nature of God, is fundamentally different from human nature, the nature of human persons. In fact, one can speak of an ontological divide or chasm separating the two: the former is unoriginate, the latter is originate.

The doctrine of exaltation presupposes that God is of the same species as human persons. There is no distinction between uncreated and created beings or persons since all persons, divine as well as human, are uncreated. In other words, intelligence, the core or essence of every person (whether divine or human) is self-existent and eternal, uncreated and uncreatable. Through the process of spirit birth, intelligences are clothed by divine parents with spirit bodies and become autonomous, conscious selves. And just as with human children in relation to their human parents, the spirit children of divine parents possess the innate capacity, as a fact of their spirit birth, to progress and grow up into the likeness of their divine parents.

Thus, for the doctrine of theosis, to become divine means to unite in one created person both his or her own created human nature and the uncreated divine energies of the three uncreated divine persons. In other words, a divinized human person never ceases to be created and human; but insofar as that person is divinized, he or she becomes through grace what he or she is not by natureâ??divine. Furthermore, to speak of divinization by the divine energies, as opposed to the divine essence, is meant to reflect the ontological distinction between uncreated and created. Only Godâ??the three divine personsâ??is divine essentially. Only the persons of the Trinity are uncreated and eternal by fact of their nature. Human persons cannot become divine essentially because this would be a logical contradiction. What humans are in essence, by nature, is created and dependent. The divine energies are God himself insofar as he shares his uncreated nature with created persons, thus divinizing them. In this sense, the divinized person is always both created and uncreated, finite and infinite: created and finite by nature, uncreated and infinite by grace, by reason of union with God's divinizing energies. The divinized person becomes all that God is except for identity in essence, which is to say, without ceasing to be created and finite.

In contrast, within the context of the doctrine of exaltation, there is no ontological divide or distinction between human and divineâ??divine and human do not refer to ontological categories.3 Instead, divine and human signify different levels of progression within a continuum. In other words, some uncreated intelligences have progressed to the point of godhood (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost), while other uncreated intelligences have not and are thus dependent on those who have already done so to attain godhood themselves (human persons). Thus, because humans and God already share a like essence, at some future time humans, as exalted beings, can become exactly as God now is.

Even given this profound difference rooted in ontology, the difference between participation and growth, the doctrines of theosis and exaltation both agree in teaching that divinized humans are always subordinate to the God who makes their divinization a reality. In the case of theosis, this subordination is clearly founded on ontology: those who become "gods by grace" are as dependent for their status as gods as they are for their very existence and being. And while the doctrine of exaltation has as premises the ontological independence of human persons from God and the innate potential of humans to become gods, based on being literally children of divine parents, this is not meant to imply that divinized persons will ever become greater than God or cease to be related to God after the attainment of exaltation.

Latter-day Saints do not, or at least should not, believe that they will ever be independent in all eternity from their Father in heaven or from their Savior Jesus Christ or from the Holy Spirit. Those who are exalted by his grace will always be "gods" (always with a small g, even in the Doctrine and Covenants) by grace, by an extension of his power, and will always be subordinate to the Godhead.4

Despite what our critics claim, the Latter-day Saints do not believe that human beings will ever become the equals of God, or be independent of God, or that they will ever cease to be subordinate to God.5

So just as human children have within their very being the capacity to become mature human adults, provided they receive the assistance of their parents, the doctrine of exaltation teaches that while human persons are ontologically independent of God and have within their very nature a capacity to become divine, they can do so, ultimately, only by the grace of God. In this sense, it is appropriate to refer to exalted persons as "gods by grace" as well.

I think this sums up what I've been saying, from a source that most LDS should be happy with.

Take care, everyone

[saemo]

Granted, the Body of Christ is a Holy Nation; by partaking of the sacrament in contrite repentance and in remembrance of His sacrifice we are forgiven of our sins, hence, made holy.

But I can assure you that when I was a Catholic I was never taught that Godhood in the form of eternal Fatherhood (and Motherhood) is available through the priesthood of God and Christ.

Are these promises in the Catholic catechism?

Were you taught that by virtue of your baptism that you are a prophet, priest and king?

How mormonism has applied this is totally an invention of mormonism. It has never been taught, by any Christian, in any century.

Does the Catholic church teach that our potentially divine nature can include being as God is…a Creator, a Progenitor of Spirits, a Savior, a Destroyer of worlds?

Again, and invention of mormonism that has no base in anything that Christ or the Apostles taught.

All of Christianity teaches a Sonship in God, that we are the sons and daughters of God. Only the LDS Church teaches from modern revelation that our divine kinship with God can progress into a divine Parenthood in Christ.

I'll ask the same thing I have asked many a mormon. Please show me in where Jesus or the Apostles taught that marriage is required for anything having to do with sharing in the divine nature.

The Christian world has no doctrine related to what our divine nature looks like. That is the 'secret' of which I speak that has not been verbalized by the Christian churches because they have denied modern revelation in the form of developing and growing volumes of scripture.

It is a "secret" that has been invented. I can invent "secrets" too. It's easy.

The fact of the matter is that the Catholic church seems so wrapped up in the 'mysticism' that it has kept the flock ignorant of the simple truths. Whenever I read Catholic expletives of doctrine, it seems like a college theological dissertation. It lacks the Spirit of revelation, it lacks the sense of discovery, and it raises more questions than it answers.

When I was raised LDS, I was bored out my mind at everything I read. It lacked any sort intellect and was all based on emotion. Discovery? Please. If you want to call forages of fantasy discovery, fine.

The word of the Lord that was delivered through the prophet Joseph Smith answers the question of our divine nature: "We shall be Gods". Not in a polytheistic sense, but in a plural priesthood with multiple dominions around the universe. One God made up of a multitude of Priests, their wives, their children, and their extended families.

ummm, sure, tell yourself that. Sorry, you are polytheistic. And this is even weirder than anything I was taught as LDS. Keep thinking.

The word of the Lord in latter-day scripture goes on to describe the covenants we need to make in order to be made priests of God and Christ in this life and in the life after.

The doctrine of eternal progression rehearsed in our Lord's disclosures to Joseph Smith and subsequent apostles, prophets, and priests of God in the LDS Church is the same promise God gave to Abraham; namely, the promise of "descendants as numerous as the stars of heaven".

Jews cling onto the promise of the land as their inheritance in Abraham; this promise has finite benefits since this world is not eternal. Christians and Muslims cling to their sonship in Abraham; the first as descendants of Israel in Judah and the second as descendants of Ishmael.

Only the LDS Church has a doctrine in place that gathers up Israel into its tribes, even as Moses gathered and counted them.

I see what you have given up the Sacraments that Christ instituted for. I am sorry that you have fallen for the inventions of Mormonism.

The Catholic and Christian churches are still in the 'pastoral' mode of gathering His sheep. And what shepherds were they that when I left the flock let me walk through the wilderness of temptation and sin without a knock on the door? Only by the Spirit's direct intervention was I guided to the true Church of Christ. Only by the Spirit's voice did I learn of the Living God in revelation by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost.

hi, your wanderings are not the fault of the Catholic Church.

Once I was in the true Church of Saints, then I could learn the promise of my own divine nature in God. This truth could not come out of the churches of men which deny an open canon of scripture.

The truth comes out of the LDS Church through direct revelation to its prophets.

The truth is found in Jesus Christ and the Church He established.

The New Testament teaches that His true Church would have prophets; the Old Testament teaches that Israel is a nation of prophets. Only the LDS Church fits the description of a Church and an Israel in Christ.

The secret is out. The mystery is solved. Israel is glorified in Christ through His Church.

Zemah

Christ is the fullfilment of the Israel prophecies. He is our Prophet. And I don't know where you got this idea there are no prophets. Some people do indeed have this gift. There is not a word in the NT given by Jesus or the Apostles that the gift of prophecy is given to one person and one person alone. This is but another invention of Mormonism.

[Zemah]

Here is a section of Jordan Vadja's MA thesis on this subject, comparing the ancient Christian doctrine of theosis/deification to the LDS form. The entire document can be read in several sections on the FARMS website, here:

http://farms.byu.edu/authors/?authorID=435

I think this sums up what I've been saying, from a source that most LDS should be happy with.

Take care, everyone

Thanks, but this reads like a college theological dissertation.

Maybe Catholic and LDS writers have more in common than I am ready to admit.

Do you have anything regarding the Christianâ??s placement in Israel?

Where is the Christian doctrine on the restoration of Israel? I ask even as the first Apostles asked as Christ was lifted up into heaven for the last time (Acts 1:6).

Zemah

[rhinomelon]

Do you have anything regarding the Christianâ??s placement in Israel?

Where is the Christian doctrine on the restoration of Israel? I ask even as the first Apostles asked as Christ was lifted up into heaven for the last time (Acts 1:6).

I honestly don't know what you're referring to, unless it is the placing of LDS members into various tribes of Israel at their patriarchal blessing. I don't have an opinion or any information on the above; I'm focused on the main topic of this thread, i.e. deification doctrines between ECF and LDS compared.

Take care, everyone

[Zemah]

Were you taught that by virtue of your baptism that you are a prophet, priest and king?

No, baptism makes me a saint and member of the community of saints in His Church.

I am a prophet of God because He has called me to be one; I am a prophet in the Church only because I have received the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by those of His Church with the priesthood authority to perform this ordinance.

I am a priest of God and Christ because He has called me to be one; I am a priest in His Church because I have taken the oaths and covenants of the priesthood as commanded in the word of God revealed to His Church.

I am a king in His kingdom because the Holy Spirit of Promise has revealed to me my kingship as confirmed later in the Temple ordinances available to all priests.

How mormonism has applied this is totally an invention of mormonism. It has never been taught, by any Christian, in any century.

Again, and invention of mormonism that has no base in anything that Christ or the Apostles taught.

It is a "secret" that has been invented. I can invent "secrets" too. It's easy.

Right, and Galileo invented mountains on the moon said the old Catholic guard on truth. If God is Truth, then who was more inspired to speak, Galileo in discovery or the Catholic church in denunciation?

Our Lord spoke to a prophet, and Joseph Smith discovered the truth. You do not have to have faith in this to receive Christ, but you do have to have faith in this to be counted with the saints in Israel.

I suppose it is easier to call it invention then it is to call upon the Spirit to confirm its truth. It is always easier to denounce truth than to pronounce it. The first gathers in the feebleminded and weak spirited, the second challenges the ardent minded and peaks the spirited.

Someone ignorant of physics could easily say it is the invention of physicists; someone ignorant of chemistry could denounce it as the invention of chemists. Someone limited in spiritual discernment can easily miss the truth that Mormons have in modern scripture and personal testimony from the Holy Ghost.

How can a Christian testify to what he does not have a testimony of?

I'll ask the same thing I have asked many a mormon. Please show me in where Jesus or the Apostles taught that marriage is required for anything having to do with sharing in the divine nature.

The answer, of course, is in Doctrine & Covenants. But to someone who does not believe in modern revelation and an open canon of scripture these words of our Lord are meaningless.

When I was raised LDS, I was bored out my mind at everything I read. It lacked any sort intellect and was all based on emotion. Discovery? Please. If you want to call forages of fantasy discovery, fine.

ummm, sure, tell yourself that. Sorry, you are polytheistic. And this is even weirder than anything I was taught as LDS. Keep thinking.

I see what you have given up the Sacraments that Christ instituted for. I am sorry that you have fallen for the inventions of Mormonism.

It is easier to live in doubt and denial than to climb to the mountain top.

hi, your wanderings are not the fault of the Catholic Church.

The point is they claim to be shepherds of His flock, but where were they when I was lost and needed guidance? The Lord is my shepherd and He brought me to the LDS Church for a purpose. But are you listening?

1). The truth is found in Jesus Christ and the Church He established.

2). Christ is the fullfilment of the Israel prophecies. He is our Prophet.

3). And I don't know where you got this idea there are no prophets. Some people do indeed have this gift.

4). There is not a word in the NT given by Jesus or the Apostles that the gift of prophecy is given to one person and one person alone.

5). This is but another invention of Mormonism.

1). Where is this Church? By what name does it call itself? I only see a divided Christianity among the churches of men and yet I know Christ cannot be divided.

2). The truth of the matter is that the Christian churches do not have revelation from God regarding the Israel He builds in Christ.

3). There are no prophets in the churches of men; prophets come out of Israel and they speak to Israel; that is to say, Israel hears them and follows them. Christians follow ministers of religious interpretation, not true prophets of God.

4). I never said the gift of prophecy was limited to one man. I call myself a prophet in the Church, I acknowledge the apostles of the Church, and I sustain the prophet of the Church, Thomas Monson. I will say that the gift of prophecy is limited to the saints of His Church in Israel. There will not be a true prophet arising from another church, but false prophets will arise outside of the LDS Church.

5). Doubt and denial are the inventions of the devil that keep the faithful away from the higher glories promised in Christ through prophets.

Zemah

[Zemah]

I honestly don't know what you're referring to, unless it is the placing of LDS members into various tribes of Israel at their patriarchal blessing. I don't have an opinion or any information on the above; I'm focused on the main topic of this thread, i.e. deification doctrines between ECF and LDS compared.

Take care, everyone

And I am saying exactly that; the LDS Church has a deification of Israel doctrine and the Christian churches do not.

Christ has glorified Israel in Himself through His LDS Church doctrine; and many Christians glorify the Jewish community and the land of the Middle East as being the gathering place of Israel.

The LDS Church has the Holy Ghost and the revealed word of God on the subject of Israel; and the Christian churches do not.

Zemah

[rhinomelon]

And I am saying exactly that; the LDS Church has a deification of Israel doctrine and the Christian churches do not.

Then I think we agree here. Mainstream Christianity does not have, and has never had, a doctrine like the one you describe. So I guess you would agree that the post-apostolic belief that is the focus of this thread does not agree with modern LDS doctrine, right? That's been my point here.

The LDS Church has the Holy Ghost and the revealed word of God on the subject of Israel; and the Christian churches do not.

Are you separating the LDS church from the Christian churches? In any case, the above statement would be a fun thread for another time...

Take care

[Zemah]

Are you separating the LDS church from the Christian churches? In any case, the above statement would be a fun thread for another time...

Take care

I think the Christian churches have separated themselves from Christ. A divided Christianity cannot stand for a unity Christ.

I think that Christ has built (restored) His version of Israel in the LDS Church.

Zemah