Non-Mormon Christian Doctrine That Men May Become Gods

[volgadon]

Some months after arriving at Mt. Athos and beginning his monastic life, St. Silouan - then the novice Simeon - had a dramatic experience of Christ in prayer (from St. Silouan the Athonite, pages 14-15):

Sitting in his cell before vespers, he thought, 'God will not hear me!' He felt utterly forsaken, his soul plunged in the darkness of despondency. Sick at heart, he remained in this black hell for about an hour.

That same day, during vespers in the Church of the Holy Prophet Elijah (adjoining the mill), to the right of the Royal Doors, by the ikon of the Saviour, he beheld the living Christ.

In a manner passing all understanding the Lord appeared to the young novice whose whole being was filled with the fire of the grace of the Holy Spirit - that fire which the Lord brought down to earth with His coming.

The vision drained Simeon of all his strength, and the Lord vanished.

http://www.st-silouan.org/StSilouan/ExperienceOfChristExcerpt.php

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/siluan_e.htm

[Storm Rider]

It is easy for us Mormons to over-play our hand on the theosis issue. The Mormon theology of eternal progression is, indeed, based on theosis ideas, via the Wesley an idea of holiness or Christian perfection. Of all the Protestant faiths, Wesleyanism was the one that most clearly retained the idea of theosis in common with Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

However, the Mormon idea of eternal progression is not, merely, theosis. It is much more radical and literal than theosis. Basically, Joseph Smith took the basic Wesleyan idea of theosis to its literal extreme. I think that there are many opportunities for dialogue between Mormons and traditional Christians on this issue, but we should not minimize our differences. In a sense, there is a vast chasm between us, because under traditional Christianity, humans are created and contingent beings while God, who was always God in his present form, is the only uncreated and necessary being. In Mormonism, by contrast, humans are uncreated beings as well, and both God and humans are capable of growth and progression.

I would like a CFR that God can progress. You may mean something else, but the words you use indicates that God is less than what he is supposed to be, which I believe is completely false. God has no progression to do; he is beyond progression because he is perfect. I will wait for your references.

[Cobalt-70]

I would like a CFR that God can progress. You may mean something else, but the words you use indicates that God is less than what he is supposed to be, which I believe is completely false. God has no progression to do; he is beyond progression because he is perfect. I will wait for your references.

Putting that question aside, my point was more that God had progressed from man to god, meaning that unlike the traditional Christian God, he is not eternally unchanging.

[Storm Rider]

Putting that question aside, my point was more that God had progressed from man to god, meaning that unlike the traditional Christian God, he is not eternally unchanging.

I have never bought into the position that God progressed. When I read the scriptures I get the clear impression that God has always been God. He never was anything but God. He is today what he was at the beginning of creation and what he will be throughout all eternity.

[WalkerW]

I will also offer my opinion that If early Judaism tended toward anthropomorphism, their own revelation also lends itself readily to the views which became prevalent later. I suggest it is a mistake to hold that one side or the other is guilty of clear and plain infidelity to the words of Scripture we accept in common.

You are absolutely right. Many Jewish philosophers were adopting a particular view of God that would become prevalent among Christian philosophers as well. In fact, the binitarian inclusion of Jesus in the Godhead (part of the Two Powers in Heaven tradition) led to a clash between Jewish Christians and "a group of Christian writers called "heresiologists," the anatomizers of heresy and heresies, and their Jewish counterparts, the Rabbis."[1] Early Christian writers such as Justin Martyr defended the binitarian stance against Christian Modalists and Jewish Rabbis who claimed the doctrine was ditheistic. It was not the doctrine of the Logos that was unique to Judaism, but that the Logos "became flesh among us" in the person of Jesus. Ironically, "in the move to a trinitarian theology within which the entire trinity is both self-contained and fully transcendent, Athanasius and his fellows insist that God alone, without a mediator, without an angel, without a Logos, is the creator. Logos theology is, ultimately, as thoroughly rejected within Nicene Christianity as within orthodox rabbinism."[2]

1. Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), 2. ""Heresiology"--the "science" of heresies--inscribes the border lines, and heresiologists are the inspectors of religious customs." (Ibid., 2.)

2. Boyarin, 2004, 139.

[WalkerW]

3DOP,

I'm actually a fan of Thomist-Aristotelian philosophy. Edward Feser "almost persuadest me" to be a Trinitarian. I've actually been somewhat of a defender for Aquinas' views, though I do not conflate them with God.

[Cobalt-70]

I have never bought into the position that God progressed. When I read the scriptures I get the clear impression that God has always been God. He never was anything but God. He is today what he was at the beginning of creation and what he will be throughout all eternity.

That's what Smith's scriptures say, but only because this idea had not yet been developed when Smith dictated them. This was something that came to him in the last year or so of his life, during a time when he really wasn't creating much written scripture anymore, and instead relying on his teachings to convey new doctrine. That the doctrine "took" is evidenced by the fact that Mormon leaders, until Hinckley, agreed with Smith. And Hinckley evidently did, too, but just didn't want to admit it to national reporters.

[Storm Rider]

That's what Smith's scriptures say, but only because this idea had not yet been developed when Smith dictated them. This was something that came to him in the last year or so of his life, during a time when he really wasn't creating much written scripture anymore, and instead relying on his teachings to convey new doctrine. That the doctrine "took" is evidenced by the fact that Mormon leaders, until Hinckley, agreed with Smith. And Hinckley evidently did, too, but just didn't want to admit it to national reporters.

Hmm, no that is not correct. It was not universally taught or believed by the leaders of the Church. McConkie did not teach this and scriptures do not teach this. As you say, Joseph who was quite used to having revelations and recording them never taught this as doctrine or as revelation. Joseph never got a a point where he decided to not receive or record revelation or do you have a reference for that position? If he meant for something to be taken as doctrine you will find it in the D&C; if it is not there it is a really good clue Joseph did not teach it or accept it as doctrine for the Church.

[altersteve]

That's what Smith's scriptures say, but only because this idea had not yet been developed when Smith dictated them. This was something that came to him in the last year or so of his life, during a time when he really wasn't creating much written scripture anymore, and instead relying on his teachings to convey new doctrine. That the doctrine "took" is evidenced by the fact that Mormon leaders, until Hinckley, agreed with Smith. And Hinckley evidently did, too, but just didn't want to admit it to national reporters.

Interesting, because I perceive no contradiction between what Joseph said about God once having been "a man" and what the scriptures say about God having been God for eternity.

[Zakuska]

Despite its vagueness, the concept was widely known and used and believed. ``The definition of the salvation of man as his deification was a standard element of Eastern theology'' (Pelikan 2:46). ``After Theophilus, Ireneæus, Hippolytus, and Origen, it is found in all the Fathers of the ancient Church'' (Harnack 3:164 note 2, which also cites passages from Ephraem, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Apollonarius, Macarius, Pseudo-hippolytus, Dionysus the Areopagite, Sophronius, Leo of Russia, and Gennadius. Lampe (631) includes most of the above and Maxentius, Basil, Cyril, and Epiphanius.

Athanasius was working with a widespread but loosely-defined tradition with roots in preChristian philosophy. Irenaeus mentioned the concept several times, with only brief explanation (evidence that he assumed that his readers would be familiar with the term). He noted that Christians could be called God: ``There is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption'' (Against Heresies, book IV, preface, section 4; AnteNicene Fathers 1:463). We are human in the beginning, but ``at length gods'' (IV 38.4; ANF 1:522). We are raised up ``to the life of God'' (V 9.2; ANF 1:535).

In his use of this concept, Athanasius is closer to Irenaeus and Clement than to Origen (Robertson 65). In several places, echoing Clement, Athanasius said that Christ became man so that man might become God, or gods, or divine, or exalted.²¹ What did he mean? At least once he felt ``the boldness of the formula'' and clarified in his third treatise against the Arians: ``To become as the Father is impossible for us creatures.'' ``There be one Son by nature...we too become sons, not as He in nature and truth, but according to the grace of Him that calleth, and though we are men from the earth, and yet called gods, not as the True God or His Word.... We are sons, not as the Son, as gods, not as He Himself. '' (Orat 3.19-20; Robertson 404-405). Similarly, in Orat 1.37 he briefly noted that we are children by grace, not by nature. We are like the Son ``not in essence but in sonship, which we shall partake from Him'' (De Syn 53; Robertson 479).

WOW! Makes one wonder why Modern Evanglicals are missing the doctrine completely and say Mormons are anathema?

http://www.angelfire...st/DIVINIZ.html

Edited July 30, 2012 by Zakuska

[Cobalt-70]

Hmm, no that is not correct. It was not universally taught or believed by the leaders of the Church. McConkie did not teach this and scriptures do not teach this. As you say, Joseph who was quite used to having revelations and recording them never taught this as doctrine or as revelation. Joseph never got a a point where he decided to not receive or record revelation or do you have a reference for that position? If he meant for something to be taken as doctrine you will find it in the D&C; if it is not there it is a really good clue Joseph did not teach it or accept it as doctrine for the Church.

In the KFS, just before Smith revealed that God was not always God, and that he actually "once was a man like one of us," he stated,

"I want you all to know God and to be familiar with Him. If I can get you to know Him, I can bring you to Him. And if so, all persecution against me will cease. This will let you know that I am His servant, for

I speak as one having authority

and not as a scribe."

It sounds to me like Smith believed it was doctrine. In fact, this issue was such an important doctrine that he believed you couldn't have eternal life unless you understood this true nature of God: "Here then is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God. You have got to learn how to make yourselves Gods in order to save yourselves and be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done."

As to Bruce McConkie disagreeing with Smith on that point, McConkie is no longer the touchstone of Mormon orthodoxy. But in any event, I don't think you are correct. See, e.g., McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, p. 64. He did not believe the idea that God was progressing, but that doesn't mean that he didn't believe Joseph Smith's teachings that God had progressed from the status of a man. Quite to the contrary, when speaking approvingly about Smith's "God was once a man" doctrine, McConkie stated that Smith's words relate "to God's high status as an exalted man, as to how he attained his position of supreme eminence, and as to how we may pursue the same course to the same eternal destiny." McConkie was in full agreement with Smith on the issue of God once being a man.

[Cobalt-70]

Interesting, because I perceive no contradiction between what Joseph said about God once having been "a man" and what the scriptures say about God having been God for eternity.

Only if men, like you, I, or Joseph Smith, are also already gods and always have been gods.

And only if you think Joseph Smith was wrong when he said, "I am going to tell you how God came to be God and what sort of a being He is. For we have imagined that God was God from the beginning of all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil so you may see." (KFS)

[Storm Rider]

In the KFS, just before Smith revealed that God was not always God, and that he actually "once was a man like one of us," he stated,

"I want you all to know God and to be familiar with Him. If I can get you to know Him, I can bring you to Him. And if so, all persecution against me will cease. This will let you know that I am His servant, for

I speak as one having authority

and not as a scribe."

It sounds to me like Smith believed it was doctrine. In fact, this issue was such an important doctrine that he believed you couldn't have eternal life unless you understood this true nature of God: "Here then is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God. You have got to learn how to make yourselves Gods in order to save yourselves and be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done."

As to Bruce McConkie disagreeing with Smith on that point, McConkie is no longer the touchstone of Mormon orthodoxy. But in any event, I don't think you are correct. See, e.g., McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, p. 64. He did not believe the idea that God was progressing, but that doesn't mean that he didn't believe Joseph Smith's teachings that God had progressed from the status of a man. Quite to the contrary, when speaking approvingly about Smith's "God was once a man" doctrine, McConkie stated that Smith's words relate "to God's high status as an exalted man, as to how he attained his position of supreme eminence, and as to how we may pursue the same course to the same eternal destiny." McConkie was in full agreement with Smith on the issue of God once being a man.

I understand you have an opinion; now please provide the reference previously requested.

If Joseph had received revelation on this matter it would be in the D&C. It is either there or it is not and this teaching is not. You have offered your opinion as to why, but the reality is that it is not. The Restored Church has no problem adding to scripture when a revelation has been received. If this were doctrine or a true revelation you would find it in scripture. The mere fact that it is not there is significant and vital to understanding true doctrine.

[altersteve]

Only if men, like you, I, or Joseph Smith, are also already gods and always have been gods.

Not even close. Jesus Christ was once "a man," but He too has always been God and always will be. I've explained this several times so I don't think I should go any further.

And only if you think Joseph Smith was wrong when he said, "I am going to tell you how God came to be God and what sort of a being He is. For we have imagined that God was God from the beginning of all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil so you may see." (KFS)

I'm open to the idea that Joseph was incorrect. I'm also open to the idea that he was not. Either way, God has always been God -- in one sense or another. It's not something we can fully understand yet.

Sorry, but I don't seem to share your black-and-white way of thinking.

[Storm Rider]

Not even close. Jesus Christ was once "a man," but He too has always been God and always will be. I've explained this several times so I don't think I should go any further.

I'm open to the idea that Joseph was incorrect. I'm also open to the idea that he was not. Either way, God has always been God -- in one sense or another. It's not something we can fully understand yet.

Sorry, but I don't seem to share your black-and-white way of thinking.

Agreed

[Cobalt-70]

I'm open to the idea that Joseph was incorrect. I'm also open to the idea that he was not. Either way, God has always been God -- in one sense or another. It's not something we can fully understand yet.

Sorry, but I don't seem to share your black-and-white way of thinking.

Don't think this reflects my thinking. It reflects Joseph Smith's thinking, which I don't necessarily always agree with, though I think he was brilliant on this particular issue. Making both the Father and the Son like us initially, and requiring us to follow in their example as they grew from grace to grace into their godhood was a masterpiece of religious thinking.

[Cobalt-70]

I understand you have an opinion; now please provide the reference previously requested.

If Joseph had received revelation on this matter it would be in the D&C. It is either there or it is not and this teaching is not. You have offered your opinion as to why, but the reality is that it is not. The Restored Church has no problem adding to scripture when a revelation has been received. If this were doctrine or a true revelation you would find it in scripture. The mere fact that it is not there is significant and vital to understanding true doctrine.

• Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 1971, pp. 159-60: After Zion's Camp, Smith "now sensed that he must no longer give out revelations for the incidental occasion.... During the next ten years, therefore, he dictated scarcely more than a dozen revelations, although in the previous five-year period he had given out more than a hundred. Just as his stature as a religious leader had been enhanced by his discarding the seer stones in favor of the revelation, so now it was further increased by his reliance upon the authority of his own teachings rather than upon the ubiquitous and uncompromising direction of God."
  
• Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 2005, p. 419: "Instead of formal, dictated revelations, the later teachings were delivered in sermons, conversations, or letters. Many are known today only from notes taken down by William Clayton.... The doctrine of baptism for the dead was given in a sermon and enlarged in letters. The revelation on eternal marriage was written because Hyrum requested it. Almost everything else, among them many of the richest passages in Joseph Smith's thought, is delineated only in ragged, compacted listeners' notes."
  

Edited July 31, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Storm Rider]

• Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 1971, pp. 159-60: After Zion's Camp, Smith "now sensed that he must no longer give out revelations for the incidental occasion.... During the next ten years, therefore, he dictated scarcely more than a dozen revelations, although in the previous five-year period he had given out more than a hundred. Just as his stature as a religious leader had been enhanced by his discarding the seer stones in favor of the revelation, so now it was further increased by his reliance upon the authority of his own teachings rather than upon the ubiquitous and uncompromising direction of God."
  
• Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 2005, p. 419: "Instead of formal, dictated revelations, the later teachings were delivered in sermons, conversations, or letters. Many are known today only from notes taken down by William Clayton.... The doctrine of baptism for the dead was given in a sermon and enlarged in letters. The revelation on eternal marriage was written because Hyrum requested it. Almost everything else, among them many of the richest passages in Joseph Smith's thought, is delineated only in ragged, compacted listeners' notes."
  

Let me get this straight, you are using Brodie to support an LDS doctrinal position? Brodie, as always a problem with her writing, she tries to tell readers what an historical person senses or thinks without providing any evidence. I would reject this reference.

Doctrine is found in the scriptures. I would disagree with Bushman as well on this point. An interesting discussion is the difference, if there is one, between teachings and doctrines. I think there is, but it is a debatable point for some.

As far as a discussion on baptism of the dead, LDS use the Bible more than anything. Discussing it in more detail, as Joseph did, is not a doctrinal declaration.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Storm Rider

[Cobalt-70]

Let me get this straight, you are using Brodie to support an LDS doctrinal position? Brodie, as always a problem with her writing, she tries to tell readers what an historical person senses or thinks without providing any evidence. I would reject this reference.

Doctrine is found in the scriptures. I would disagree with Bushman as well on this point. An interesting discussion is the difference, if there is one, between teachings and doctrines. I think there is, but it is a debatable point for some.

As far as a discussion on baptism of the dead, LDS use the Bible more than anything. Discussing it in more detail, as Joseph did, is not a doctrinal declaration.

These are historical positions on doctrine, not doctrinal positions, and for the former, Brodie and Bushman are the authoritative experts. The fact that they agree, Brodie being nonbeliever, Bushman being a believer, lends additional credibility.

Let me also add that there is nothing about the Nauvoo endowment in LDS scripture, or any indication that any version of an endowment was required for exaltation. Also, as Bushman noted, had it not been for the insistence of Hyrum, the whole idea of Celestial marriage might not have been recorded in a revelation. And we know that Smith practiced polygamy for years without a written revelation--indeed, during a time when LDS scripture actually forbade polygamy. There are also other important doctrines that Smith never bothered to put into scripture, such as the doctrine that God has a body of flesh and bones, that there are three degrees in the Celestial kingdom, etc. Even today, long after Smith's death, there are important LDS doctrines that LDS leaders have not bothered to put into scripture, such as sealing ceremonies between parents and children, the Heavenly Mother doctrine, and the mandatory nature of the Word of Wisdom. Just because it doesn't appear in LDS scripture, doesn't mean it isn't LDS doctrine.

[Zakuska]

These are historical positions on doctrine, not doctrinal positions, and for the former, Brodie and Bushman are the authoritative experts. The fact that they agree, Brodie being nonbeliever, Bushman being a believer, lends additional credibility.

Let me also add that there is nothing about the Nauvoo endowment in LDS scripture, or any indication that any version of an endowment was required for exaltation. Also, as Bushman noted, had it not been for the insistence of Hyrum, the whole idea of Celestial marriage might not have been recorded in a revelation. And we know that Smith practiced polygamy for years without a written revelation--indeed, during a time when LDS scripture actually forbade polygamy. There are also other important doctrines that Smith never bothered to put into scripture, such as the doctrine that God has a body of flesh and bones, that there are three degrees in the Celestial kingdom, etc. Even today, long after Smith's death, there are important LDS doctrines that LDS leaders have not bothered to put into scripture, such as sealing ceremonies between parents and children, the Heavenly Mother doctrine, and the mandatory nature of the Word of Wisdom. Just because it doesn't appear in LDS scripture, doesn't mean it isn't LDS doctrine.

D&C 130

Items of instruction given by Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Ramus, Illinois, 2 April 1843 (see History of the Church, 5:323–25).

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

D&C 131

Instructions by Joseph Smith the Prophet, given at Ramus, Illinois, 16 and 17 May 1843 (see History of the Church, 5:392–93).

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

[3DOP]

3DOP,

I'm actually a fan of Thomist-Aristotelian philosophy. Edward Feser "almost persuadest me" to be a Trinitarian. I've actually been somewhat of a defender for Aquinas' views, though I do not conflate them with God.

WalkerW,

That's great! I can see how people disagree, but I don't know how some folks can be so dismissive of such a spiritual and intellectual giant. St. Thomas was actually described by one Mormon here recently, as a "yahoo". Some people on all sides (go to Catholic Answers to find the people who embarrass me) seem to believe in "truth vs. the idiots". Anybody who doesn't believe what they do is stupid.

I'm glad you and many of your fellow LDS try to appreciate and understand those with whom they disagree. I was actually made familiar with Edward Feser's work by Daniel Peterson, who has never been anything but respectful of the Catholic faith, and had for some reason referred favorably to Feser several years ago.

3DOP

PS: I just remembered, I am almost sure Dr. Dan middle named one of his kids after that "yahoo"!

Edited July 31, 2012 by 3DOP

[Calm]

PS: I just remembered, I am almost sure Dr. Dan middle named one of his kids after that "yahoo"!

I was about to mention that....

[Cobalt-70]

D&C 130

Items of instruction given by Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Ramus, Illinois, 2 April 1843 (see History of the Church, 5:323–25).

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

D&C 131

Instructions by Joseph Smith the Prophet, given at Ramus, Illinois, 16 and 17 May 1843 (see History of the Church, 5:392–93).

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

These were put into the D&C long after Joseph Smith's death, and they reflected Smith's informal teachings, not written revelations.

[altersteve]

These were put into the D&C long after Joseph Smith's death, and they reflected Smith's informal teachings, not written revelations.

So that means they weren't revelations at all?

[Cobalt-70]

So that means they weren't revelations at all?

They were Joseph Smith's teachings, not revelations. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith had revelations from which these theological ideas were derived, though obviously you can't rule that out. But whenever Smith had a revelation, it was usually a big deal, and he would at least tell somebody about it. But the point is that by that time, Smith was leading the church, not primarily by revelations, but by authoritative teaching. He had moved from a Muhammad/Moses-type figure to a Jesus-type figure.