Did Joseph Smith Restore Theosis?

[Rob Bowman]

A recent article in Deseret News (August 3, 2011) by Dan Peterson carries the provocative title, “Joseph Smith’s restoration of ‘theosis’ was miracle, not scandal.” I have started a blog series responding to Dan's article on the heavily-trafficked evangelical blog Parchment and Pen.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

Yes in a manner of speaking he did. The idea of theosis has been totally nutured by the Protestants, and religated to a quaint symbolic meaning by the Roman Catholics. The Greek Orthodox are closer, but even that is a stretch. JS restored it to its original meaning of we become Gods, sitting on thrones of righteousness, being crowned with never ending glory.

Ps. Slight correction. It is crowned with righteousness, and sitting on thrones of never ending glory.

Edited August 6, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Cobalt-70]

A recent article in Deseret News (August 3, 2011) by Dan Peterson carries the provocative title, “Joseph Smith’s restoration of ‘theosis’ was miracle, not scandal.” I have started a blog series responding to Dan's article on the heavily-trafficked evangelical blog Parchment and Pen.

Joseph Smith didn't "restore" theosis, because theosis never went away. Theosis is still a viable idea in the Orthodox church, though it's not likely that Joseph Smith knew much about Orthodox beliefs. But there are equivalent ideas in other Christian faiths, and actually, Smith was most directly influenced by the Methodist version, which is called "Christian perfection." It is the idea, which many Methodists believe particularly within the Holiness movement, that in addition to salvation, which comes by the free and undeserved grace of Jesus, it is possible to receive additional grace to become holy and actually to become like God. It is considered a sort of "second grace." That is where the kernel of the idea of eternal progression originated. The earliest Mormonism as found in the Book of Mormon is not all that much different from Methodism, although Joseph Smith later took the Christian perfection idea to its literal and radical extreme, which I think is his single most brilliant and inspired religious innovation.

You have to take quotes of the Apostolic Fathers on the subject of theosis from FARMS types with a grain of salt. Mormons like to take these quotes out of context. There is no evidence that a full-fledged, Joseph Smith-like idea of eternal progression existed in the early Church. They believed that men could become "gods", but not in the extremely literal and radical sense that Joseph Smith taught in his King Follett discourse.

[robuchan]

Joseph Smith didn't "restore" theosis, because theosis never went away. Theosis is still a viable idea in the Orthodox church, though it's not likely that Joseph Smith knew much about Orthodox beliefs. But there are equivalent ideas in other Christian faiths, and actually, Smith was most directly influenced by the Methodist version, which is called "Christian perfection." It is the idea, which many Methodists believe particularly within the Holiness movement, that in addition to salvation, which comes by the free and undeserved grace of Jesus, it is possible to receive additional grace to become holy and actually to become like God. It is considered a sort of "second grace." That is where the kernel of the idea of eternal progression originated. The earliest Mormonism as found in the Book of Mormon is not all that much different from Methodism, although Joseph Smith later took the Christian perfection idea to its literal and radical extreme, which I think is his single most brilliant and inspired religious innovation.

You have to take quotes of the Apostolic Fathers on the subject of theosis from FARMS types with a grain of salt. Mormons like to take these quotes out of context. There is no evidence that a full-fledged, Joseph Smith-like idea of eternal progression existed in the early Church. They believed that men could become "gods", but not in the extremely literal and radical sense that Joseph Smith taught in his King Follett discourse.

You can't discuss this without first nailing down what is the Mormon doctrine concerning theosis.

A. Man can become a god (God?) someday. This means he will act just like Heavenly Father, governing over some sort of planet system with spirit children that will be born physically into their planets, and pray to this Man who became God, and these thousands or millions or billions of spirit children on this planet (or planets) will treat this Man/God as though he is the supreme being with only casual understanding of other Gods who may be at a higher level. It's unknown to what the Man/God to original Heavenly Father relationship will be like, but it's assumed the Man/God will be somewhat autonomous.

B. Man can become a god (absolutely not a God) someday. This means not much more than enjoying the Celestial Kingdom with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and other loved ones, remaining subservient and ever worshiping God as the supreme being. We may continue to create spirits and extend our family, but it's unknown how this will happen, and it will remain in the same structure as our Earthly families, with Heavenly Father clearly being the God of these families.

Big, big difference between these two. I think you'd have a big fight on your hands if you tried to get an entire class of Gospel Doctrine or High Priests to agree on which one we believe. Like Pres. Hinckley said we don't really know.

It's not a stretch to say Joseph restored the B doctrine, although you might have trouble showing it was ever lost. I think it would be a huge stretch to imply the A doctrine is taught anywhere in the bible and the doctrine is now restored.

[thesometimesaint]

robuchan:

LDS ideas of theosis are well established, and do not reference that we here on this earth will ever rule over our own planet(s). We do teach and believe that someday we will become like God. But that we will always worship him. We will NEVER replace God the Father, or go against his wishes.

[robuchan]

robuchan:

LDS ideas of theosis are well established, and do not reference that we here on this earth will ever rule over our own planet(s). We do teach and believe that someday we will become like God. But that we will always worship him. We will NEVER replace God the Father, or go against his wishes.

I think you can make the case for either A or B in my scenario. Neither are well defined, especially recently. The church is becoming more and more vague on the issue. Scenario A is implied through various prophetic quotes and a lot (most?) of LDS accept it as doctrine.

[thesometimesaint]

See http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_theosis.shtml

[robuchan]

See http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_theosis.shtml

That's a good argument for Scenario B. For Scenario A: you have KFD, the Lorenzo Snow couplet, and the musings of nearly every High Priest Quorum across America.

Edited August 6, 2011 by robuchan

[thesometimesaint]

robuchan:

So when did the KFD become LDS doctrine?

We do believe that someday men will become like God. However we know very little to nothing about what God the Father was like, and it is definately NOT doctrine. The only example is that of Jesus the Christ. Are you now claiming that we're not to try to become like him?

So when did the ruminations of every/any H.P quorum become LDS doctrine?

Edited August 6, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[robuchan]

robuchan:

So when did the KFD become LDS doctrine?

We do believe that someday men will become like God. However we know very little to nothing about what God the Father was like, and it is definately NOT doctrine. The only example is that of Jesus the Christ. Are you now claiming that we're not to try to become like him?

So when did the ruminations of every/any H.P quorum become LDS doctrine?

HP ruminations became binding same time Jeff Lindsay did. All you have for either scenario A or B in the way of official statements are vague references that can be interpreted either way.

[Rob Bowman]

saint,

You wrote:

So when did the KFD become LDS doctrine?

We do believe that someday men will become like God. However we know very little to nothing about what God the Father was like, and it is definately NOT doctrine.

I commented on this line of reasoning in my opening blog article.

[Bernard Gui]

I think you can make the case for either A or B in my scenario. Neither are well defined, especially recently. The church is becoming more and more vague on the issue. Scenario A is implied through various prophetic quotes and a lot (most?) of LDS accept it as doctrine...

HP ruminations became binding same time Jeff Lindsay did. All you have for either scenario A or B in the way of official statements are vague references that can be interpreted either way.

What is currently taught and believed:

Gospel Principles, chapter 47

Exaltation

Exaltation

• What is exaltation?

Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation.

If we prove faithful to the Lord, we will live in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom of heaven. We will become exalted, to live with our Heavenly Father in eternal families. Exaltation is the greatest gift that Heavenly Father can give His children (see D&C 14:7).

Blessings of Exaltation

• What are some blessings that will be given to those who are exalted?

Our Heavenly Father is perfect, and He glories in the fact that it is possible for His children to become like Him. His work and glory is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:62).

2. They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23).

3. They will be united eternally with their righteous family members and will be able to have eternal increase.

4. They will receive a fulness of joy.

5. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19–20). President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to His commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:36; italics in original).

Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345–46).

Our Heavenly Father knows our trials, our weaknesses, and our sins. He has compassion and mercy on us. He wants us to succeed even as He did.

Imagine what joy each of us will have when we return to our Heavenly Father if we can say: “Father, I lived according to Thy will. I have been faithful and have kept Thy commandments. I am happy to be home again.” Then we will hear Him say, “Well done … ; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord” (Matthew 25:23).

Bernard

Edited August 6, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Daniel Peterson]

A recent article in Deseret News (August 3, 2011) by Dan Peterson carries the provocative title, “Joseph Smith’s restoration of ‘theosis’ was miracle, not scandal.” I have started a blog series responding to Dan's article on the heavily-trafficked evangelical blog Parchment and Pen.

And, someday, I'm going to publish a monograph on the subject. But not right now. Other, more pressing things are on the table.

In the meantime, Rob, I appreciate your attempt to set forth your criticisms. That will be helpful when I turn to the project I have in mind on this topic.

Joseph Smith didn't "restore" theosis, because theosis never went away.

Which is why critics never cite Mormon beliefs about human deification as a point of controversy. Who can ever forget the heartwarming old Ed Decker film Our Wonderful Mormon Neighbors, "God-Makers" Not Quite Like Us?

Smith was most directly influenced by the Methodist version. . . . That is where the kernel of the idea of eternal progression originated.

A very confident declaration.

Evidence?

You have to take quotes of the Apostolic Fathers on the subject of theosis from FARMS types with a grain of salt.

Because we "FARMS types" are liars.

Mormons like to take these quotes out of context.

What an understatement! I get positively giddy at the prospect. I love it!

There is no evidence that a full-fledged, Joseph Smith-like idea of eternal progression existed in the early Church.

I don't think that the quotations I deceptively cited demonstrate that, either. My lying article didn't actually say that they did.

But I will eventually make the case that they point in that direction.

They believed that men could become "gods", but not in the extremely literal and radical sense that Joseph Smith taught in his King Follett discourse.

And you know that about the very early Church . . . how, exactly?

[Zakuska]

I'm reminded of the 2002 winter Olympics and all the Evangelical signs I saw with Lorenzo's couplet. In the minds and vernacular of the Modern day Evangelical Theosis is effectively dead.

[robuchan]

What is currently taught and believed:

Gospel Principles, chapter 47

Exaltation

Bernard

So just curious, which do you believe in, Scenario A or B from my previous post? This is kind of what I mean by vague, because I have to ask. I honestly think it's about 50-50 you'll say A or B.

[mfbukowski]

I'm reminded of the 2002 winter Olympics and all the Evangelical signs I saw with Lorenzo's couplet. In the minds and vernacular of the Modern day Evangelical Theosis is effectively dead.

I asked a local pastor once about if it was fair that Billy Graham receive the same reward as a life-long drunk and child murderer who had suddenly, days before his death, become "saved".

He said that some receive "jewels in their crown" (he said which were symbols) of a higher reward than others. And then he said "but that is about all we know about it"

John 17 seems so clear to me, I can't imagine how one would misinterpret it.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

I asked a local pastor once about if it was fair that Billy Graham receive the same reward as a life-long drunk and child murderer who had suddenly, days before his death, become "saved".

I can tell you this: Billy Graham would not have a problem with this at all. But you have misunderstood something, and in quite a revealing way. Billy Graham does not view salvation as a "reward" that he will receive for his good life. He views salvation as a gift of mercy to someone who doesn't deserve anything good from God. Give him the opportunity, and Billy Graham will gladly talk to that despicable criminal in his last days on earth and urge him to accept the free gift of eternal life that Jesus Christ died to give him.

You wrote:

John 17 seems so clear to me, I can't imagine how one would misinterpret it.

No need to imagine; examples of people misinterpreting it are quite close at hand.

[mfbukowski]

I can tell you this: Billy Graham would not have a problem with this at all. But you have misunderstood something, and in quite a revealing way. Billy Graham does not view salvation as a "reward" that he will receive for his good life. He views salvation as a gift of mercy to someone who doesn't deserve anything good from God. Give him the opportunity, and Billy Graham will gladly talk to that despicable criminal in his last days on earth and urge him to accept the free gift of eternal life that Jesus Christ died to give him.

I never said salvation was a reward, but of course you would think I thought that. You really still, after all this, have a very tenuous grasp on even the basics of Mormonism. We are saved by grace- we cannot possibly earn it; it is not a "reward" by any means. It appears you don't even quite know what we mean by "salvation"- for us it has several meanings.

It's a pity that people think that our loving Father doesnt think we deserve anything good from him.

They must have a very odd view of parenting.

I don't feel that way about my children, and I know it's odd to you, but I think God actually loves us better and more infinitely than I love my children. I would give them all I have and sacrifice to give them more. That's what parents do.

[David T]

I never said salvation was a reward, but of course you would think I thought that.

It's because you said "I asked a local pastor once about if it was fair that Billy Graham receive the same reward", and it was easy to make the jump with 'reward' meaning 'salvation' - a point which you didn't clarify. Did you mean something else beyond Salvation as the object of the reward being recieved in that statement?

[Bernard Gui]

So just curious, which do you believe in, Scenario A or B from my previous post? This is kind of what I mean by vague, because I have to ask. I honestly think it's about 50-50 you'll say A or B.

I will go with what is written in the LDS manual.

It's quite easy to understand.

Bernard

[zerinus]

It's because you said "I asked a local pastor once about if it was fair that Billy Graham receive the same reward", and it was easy to make the jump with 'reward' meaning 'salvation' - a point which you didn't clarify. Did you mean something else beyond Salvation as the object of the reward being recieved in that statement?

Without doubt, salvation is a reward:

Genesis 15

:

1 After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great

reward

.

Psalms 19

:

9 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.

10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.

11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great

reward

.

Psalms 58

:

11 So that a man shall say, Verily there is a

reward

for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.

Isaiah 62

:

11 Behold, the Lord hath proclaimed unto the end of the world, Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh; behold, his

reward

is with him, and his work before him.

Matthew 5

:

12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your

reward

in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

Matthew 6

:

1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no

reward

of your Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 10

:

41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's

reward;

and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's

reward

.

Matthew 10

:

42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his

reward

.

Mark 9

:

41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his

reward

.

Luke 6

:

23 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your

reward

is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.

Luke 6

:

35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your

reward

shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

Hebrews 10

:

35 Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of

reward

.

Hebrews 11

:

6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a

rewarder

of them that diligently seek him.

Revelation 11

:

18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give

reward

unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Alma 32

:

43 Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the

rewards

of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth fruit unto you.

Alma 41

:

6 And so it is on the other hand. If he hath repented of his sins, and desired righteousness until the end of his days, even so he shall be

rewarded

unto righteousness.

Alma 41

:

14 Therefore, my son, see that you are merciful unto your brethren; deal justly, judge righteously, and do good continually; and if ye do all these things then shall ye receive your

reward;

yea, ye shall have mercy restored unto you again; ye shall have justice restored unto you again; ye shall have a righteous judgment restored unto you again; and ye shall have good

rewarded

unto you again.

3 Nephi 12

:

12 For ye shall have great joy and be exceedingly glad, for great shall be your

reward

in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets who were before you.

3 Nephi 13

:

1 Verily, verily, I say that I would that ye should do alms unto the poor; but take heed that ye do not your alms before men to be seen of them; otherwise ye have no

reward

of your Father who is in heaven.

D&C 6

:

33 Fear not to do good, my sons, for whatsoever ye sow, that shall ye also reap; therefore, if ye sow good ye shall also reap good for your

reward

.

D&C 14

:

11 And behold, thou art David, and thou art called to assist; which thing if ye do, and are faithful, ye shall be blessed both spiritually and temporally, and great shall be your

reward

. Amen.

D&C 54

:

10 And again, be patient in tribulation until I come; and, behold, I come quickly, and my

reward

is with me, and they who have sought me early shall find rest to their souls. Even so. Amen.

D&C 58

:

2 For verily I say unto you, blessed is he that keepeth my commandments, whether in life or in death; and he that is faithful in tribulation, the

reward

of the same is greater in the kingdom of heaven.

D&C 59

:

23 But learn that he who doeth the works of righteousness shall receive his

reward

, even peace in this world and eternal life in the world to come.

[robuchan]

I will go with what is written in the LDS manual.

It's quite easy to understand.

Bernard

No it's not easy to understand. If I don't know which you mean, Scenario A or B, than it's most definitely not clear. And if you're reticent to take a stand A or B, then something's weird.

Scenario A and B could not be more different. Scenario A is offensive and blasphemous to the Christian world. Scenario B is biblical and may ruffle some feathers but for the most part it's just fine to the Christian world.

This is an example of why a lot of people don't trust apologists. They're intentionally unclear and whether they mean it or not, they come across disingenuous.

Edited August 7, 2011 by robuchan

[Flyonthewall]

No it's not easy to understand. If I don't know which you mean, Scenario A or B, than it's most definitely not clear. And if you're reticent to take a stand A or B, then something's weird.

Scenario A and B could not be more different. Scenario A is offensive and blasphemous to the Christian world. Scenario B is biblical and may ruffle some feathers but for the most part it's just fine to the Christian world.

This is an example of why a lot of people don't trust apologists. They're intentionally unclear and whether they mean it or not, they come across disingenuous.

Scenario A is full of speculation run rampant and framed by critics of our faith.

Here is what is spelled out:

... 19And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no hmurder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

20Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

John 17 and Revelation 3 say a lot too.

Beyond what the scriptures and prophet says, it is all speculation. It seems like you want people to speculate and call it truth.

Can you show me anywhere, where your scenario A is spelled out in scripture or by the church?

[robuchan]

Scenario A is full of speculation run rampant and framed by critics of our faith.

Here is what is spelled out:

John 17 and Revelation 3 say a lot too.

Beyond what the scriptures and prophet says, it is all speculation. It seems like you want people to speculate and call it truth.

Can you show me anywhere, where your scenario A is spelled out in scripture or by the church?

Thanks for taking a stand on scenario A vs B. I think you're right that the church is teaching scenario B right now. But I believe it's unclear enough that you would have a lot of surprised people in the church if Pres. Monson stood up and outlined Scenario A as complete hogwash, speculative and untrue.

[saemo]

Rob:

Yes in a manner of speaking he did. The idea of theosis has been totally nutured by the Protestants, and religated to a quaint symbolic meaning by the Roman Catholics.

Roman Catholic doctrine does not separate Salvation from its consequences. We are made children of God by adoption, in, through and by Jesus Christ.

Roman Catholic teaching is very clear in the Sacramental meanings of grace, which includes partaking of the divine nature. For Roman Catholics, this is not a symbol, quaint or otherwise, but a clear act of taking GOD into oneself. The Sacraments prefigure our life to come, just as the sacrifice of the lamb prefigured Jesus Christ.

The flaw in the LDS view of theosis is the definition of deification itself. We become by grace what we are not by nature. The Early Christian Fathers, from which quotes have been lifted out of context, clearly understood deification as Catholics do today. They clearly believed in the Eucharist, as partaking of the divine nature, which is the Catholic understanding of theosis. Roman Catholics do not call it theosis, we call it just that, partaking of the divine nature. But if you will research the Orthodox meaning of theosis, it clearly states the same teachings.

Hope that helps.

Peace.

Edited August 7, 2011 by saemo