Gospel Topics: Becoming Like God

[David T]

I love the way this is presented.

https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng

[JLHPROF]

Me too.  This is how the Gospel Principles manual chapter on exaltation should read to provide a bit of depth.

[ALarson]

Thanks for posting this David.  I'll try to get the chance to read through it today.

 

Did they address or include any discussion regarding what is referred to as President Lorenzo Snow's couplet?

 

The Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon me the eyes of my understanding were opened, and I saw as clear as the sun at noonday, with wonder and astonishment, the pathway of God and man. I formed the following couplet which expresses the revelation as it was shown me "As man now is, God once was; As God now is, man may be. I felt this to be a sacred communication, which I related to no one except my sister Eliza, until I reached England, when in a confidential private conversation with President Brigham Young, in Manchester, I related to him this extraordinary manifestation.

 

[cinepro]

Thanks for posting this David.  I'll try to get the chance to read through it today.

 

Did they address or include any discussion regarding what is referred to as President Lorenzo Snow's couplet?

 

 

It says:

 

 

 

Since that sermon, known as the King Follett discourse, the doctrine that humans can progress to exaltation and godliness has been taught within the Church. Lorenzo Snow, the Church’s fifth President, coined a well-known couplet: “As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.”⁴³ Little has been revealed about the first half of this couplet, and consequently little is taught. When asked about this topic, Church President Gordon B. Hinckley told a reporter in 1997, “That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about.” When asked about the belief in humans’ divine potential, President Hinckley responded, “Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly.”⁴⁴

It would have been cool if they included the entire quote from President Hinckley. Or they could have said "Since that sermon, known as the King Follett discourse, the doctrine that humans can progress to exaltation and godliness has been taught within the Church, except for the period of time that President Gordon B. Hinckley was attending Church classes."

Edited February 25, 2014 by cinepro

[pogi]

Thanks for posting this David, it was very inspiring and well written!

 

The only part that left me wanting more was on the question of polytheism.  They asked a direct question and never gave a definitive answer wether we consider ourselves polytheists or not.  It accurately defined the "oneness" of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and our ability to become one with them, but fell short of saying, "yes, we are polytheists", or "no, we are not polytheists and here is why..."

[BCSpace]

The only part that left me wanting more was on the question of polytheism.  They asked a direct question and never gave a definitive answer wether we consider ourselves polytheists or not.

 

I wanted more too.  But they did essentially give the anthropological answer which is the correct answer because it deals with the element of worship.  True, we believe there are many Gods, but to us there is only one God, the Father...

[Anteojito]

I wanted more too.  But they did essentially give the anthropological answer which is the correct answer because it deals with the element of worship.  True, we believe there are many Gods, but to us there is only one God, the Father...

So just the god of this world?

[Rivers]

So just the god of this world?

No there are three gods of this world. More if you count Heavenly Mother, Michael, etc.

The point that the the article makes is that the gods we believe in are one as opposed to the competing deities of pagan religions.

The article also references John 17 which states that we can become one as the Father and Son are one. So from a certain point of view, all gods in existence are one God. I would say that the answer to the question to the question "Are we polytheists?" is both yes and no. That's how I read it.

[Robert F. Smith]

I love the way this is presented.

https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng

Another significant addition to the Gospel Topics section of LDS.org.  Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

[Robert F. Smith]

Thanks for posting this David, it was very inspiring and well written!

 

The only part that left me wanting more was on the question of polytheism.  They asked a direct question and never gave a definitive answer wether we consider ourselves polytheists or not.  It accurately defined the "oneness" of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and our ability to become one with them, but fell short of saying, "yes, we are polytheists", or "no, we are not polytheists and here is why..."

Brigham Young stated in April of 1852, in a sermon in Salt Lake City, that, of the various deities which exist, one "is our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do" (Journal of Discourses, 1:50; cf. Paul in I Cor 8:5-6).

 

It would be a serious mistake to term Mormons "polytheists," since they do not worship many gods.  Some have preferred the term "summotheism," but I'm not sure that it quite does Mormon belief justice.

[Robert F. Smith]

So just the god of this world?

You're being too cute by half, Anteohito.

 

We don't know the full extent of our Heavenly Father's domain, but it includes many worlds:

 

Moses 1:33 “worlds without number I have created”

D&C 76:23-24 "For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God." 

76:39 “For all the rest shall be brought forth in the resurrection of the dead, through the triumph and the glory of the Lamb, who was slain, who was in the bosom of the Father before the worlds were made.”

Abraham 3:2 And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it;

3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

.......................................  

8 And where these two facts exist, there shall be another fact above them, that is, there shall be another planet whose reckoning of time shall be longer still;

9 And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord’s time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

10 And it is given unto thee to know the set time of all the stars that are set to give light, until thou come near unto the throne of God.

11 Thus I, Abraham, talked with the Lord, face to face, as one man talketh with another; and he told me of the works which his hands had made;

12 And he said unto me: My son, my son (and his hand was stretched out), behold I will show you all these. And he put his hand upon mine eyes, and I saw those things which his hands had made, which were many; and they multiplied before mine eyes, and I could not see the end thereof.

[Storm Rider]

It is difficult to classify our beliefs.  Yes, in a strict sense, we are polytheists because we believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit; they are three that make up one Godhead.  But this avoids the focus we have on the Father. I also don't think that henotheist is an apt label. 

 

Ah the ease of saying they are one substance so therefore we must be monotheists....but then that puts the Jews and Muslims on edge. 

[BCSpace]

So just the god of this world?

 

No. I, like pogi, wanted them to specify that no, we are not polytheists.

[Coreyb]

I thought it was a great article. I like how they didn't just stay with "exaltation", but talked about Mother in Heaven, continuation of the seeds, God possibly being once a man, and even maybe "owning your own planet". I also liked how they introduced Eliza R. Snow first as a church leader, then as a poet. 

[Spammer]

The article quotes Irenaeus, Clement, and Basil as if what they taught is the same as what the LDS Church teaches today, and that what they taught faded from prominence or was lost. Neither is true. I don't understand why LDS writers quote Orthodox-Catholic Christians to support their view that the early Christians believed what Mormons believe about deification. What those church fathers believed about deification (theosis) is exactly what the Orthodox Church believes to this day and has always believed about the ultimate destiny of mankind. In fact, the kind of God the quoted church fathers believed in (uncreated, immaterial, trinity) is the same orthodox-catholic God that I worship as an Orthodox Christian and that Roman Catholics worship. The doctrine of deification as understood by Irenaeus, Clement, and Basil never faded away, was never lost. There was no need for it to be restored. The authors also overstate the difference between the view of Dionysius the Areopagite and the other church fathers.  Since God is uncreated and we are created, Irenaeus, Clement, and Basil also believed that we would be deified and become like God insofar as it is possible for material, created beings to be like the immaterial, uncreated God. 

 

The authors of the article really need to look elsewhere for evidence that early Christians understood deification the same way as the LDS Church.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Spammer

[David T]

If you read the article and the footnotes, it makes very clear there are differences in the old way of thinking and the modern view -which is especially true from the EV perspective which doesn't give as much weight to patristics. The point is that some of the modern extremes and rheteric in opposition are relatively new. They also go out of their way to note there are legitimate interpretational differences.

They even point towards a book that contrasts and compares the views.

I think this essay is very wisely written, and charitable as well.

Edited February 26, 2014 by David T

[Storm Rider]

The article quotes Irenaeus, Clement, and Basil as if what they taught is the same as what the LDS Church teaches today, and that what they taught faded from prominence or was lost. Neither is true. I don't understand why LDS writers quote Orthodox-Catholic Christians to support their view that the early Christians believed what Mormons believe about deification. What those church fathers believed about deification (theosis) is exactly what the Orthodox Church believes to this day and has always believed about the ultimate destiny of mankind. In fact, the kind of God the quoted church fathers believed in (uncreated, immaterial, trinity) is the same orthodox-catholic God that I worship as an Orthodox Christian and that Roman Catholics worship. The doctrine of deification as understood by Irenaeus, Clement, and Basil never faded away, was never lost. There was no need for it to be restored. The authors also overstate the difference between the view of Dionysius the Areopagite and the other church fathers.  Since God is uncreated and we are created, Irenaeus, Clement, and Basil also believed that we would be deified and become like God insofar as it is possible for material, created beings to be like the immaterial, uncreated God. 

 

The authors of the article really need to look elsewhere for evidence that early Christians understood deification the same way as the LDS Church.

 

I have not read the article, but there are sufficient articles on what used to be the Neal A. Maxwell Institute to understand that there is a definite difference between what the LDS Church teaches and what was taught by early Church Fathers. 

 

What I find interesting is that you talk as if deification is a common topic among Catholics today. I have never found that to be the case even though it is in the Catechism. Many orthodox (small o) Christians simply have no concept of these early teachings. The East also teaches this in a more consistent manner than what is found in the West. 

 

Lastly, it always surprises me that someone God is incapable of making his creatures like himself. Who stops him from doing that and why?  If Jesus says you will be joint-heirs with me, who then gainsays him and says, "Yes, you can be joint-heirs, but your inheritance is really not anything like mine own."  

[Spammer]

SR, I agree that theosis isn't a common topic in Roman Catholic circles.  Theosis is absolutely central to Eastern Christian spirituality.  Always has been.  As regards God being "incapable of making his creatures like himself" the limitation derives from the absolute difference between God's nature and our nature.  The quoted church fathers all believed that God is Trinity, uncreated and immaterial.  We are created and material.  The Son acquired our nature and became the God-Man, Jesus, the eternal Word and Logos of God who took on human flesh.  Christ's divinity is uncreated, original, and unoriginate.  Our divinity results only from participating in the divine nature, gods by grace, not gods by nature.  After our deification, we will remain created, contingent beings.  There is and can only be one God by nature.  I know this isn't the LDS view, but that is the view of all of the church fathers quoted in the article.  Hence, my original question.  Why do LDS authors quote early church fathers who believed in a radically different view of theosis? 

 

DavidT, the differences between the ancient view of the quoted church fathers and the modern LDS view are stark.  There's no possible way without misunderstanding or intentionally abusing the sources to interpret the quoted church fathers as if they believed what the modern LDS church believes about theosis.  That's why I'm confused about why they're quoted in the article. 

Edited February 26, 2014 by Spammer

[David T]

Just as the article presents a progression in the modern Church as to the understanding not being fully formed and articulated in the beginning, I think it tried to show the seeds - not the fully developed concept - were present and being sown much earlier by those connected closer in time to the biblical writings. That it never became fully formed modern 21st century Mormom doctrine isnt the point. The point is definitely, as I read it, that we went further, but the Fathers may be seen as a helpful point of departure as their rhetoric is concerned.

Edited February 26, 2014 by David T

[Spammer]

Ok, I guess I'm justing reading from within the context of past LDS apologetics.  I like that the article is more careful.  I see now that it doesn't explicitly state that the patristic evidence is evidence of a lost doctrine in need of restoration. 

[Storm Rider]

SR, I agree that theosis isn't a common topic in Roman Catholic circles.  Theosis is absolutely central to Eastern Christian spirituality.  Always has been.  As regards God being "incapable of making his creatures like himself" the limitation derives from the absolute difference between God's nature and our nature.  The quoted church fathers all believed that God is Trinity, uncreated and immaterial.  We are created and material.  The Son acquired our nature and became the God-Man, Jesus, the eternal Word and Logos of God who took on human flesh.  Christ's divinity is uncreated, original, and unoriginate.  Our divinity results only from participating in the divine nature, gods by grace, not gods by nature.  After our deification, we will remain created, contingent beings.  There is and can only be one God by nature.  I know this isn't the LDS view, but that is the view of all of the church fathers quoted in the article.  Hence, my original question.  Why do LDS authors quote early church fathers who believed in a radically different view of theosis? 

 

DavidT, the differences between the ancient view of the quoted church fathers and the modern LDS view are stark.  There's no possible way without misunderstanding or intentionally abusing the sources to interpret the quoted church fathers as if they believed what the modern LDS church believes about theosis.  That's why I'm confused about why they're quoted in the article. 

 

Spammer, I think I have a good grasp of the concept being taught by both the Catholic and Orthodox churches, but I still have never understood the logic of the argument. If God wants to make us like him he can and will do it regardless of the difference in nature. It was the fact that because there was difference between the nature of God and the nature of his creatures that somehow that prevented God from causing us to become like him. Do you see the fallacy of the logic; the idea necessarily limits God's ability to change our nature.

 

I think we quote early Church Fathers because it is not radically different. When Irenaeus stated, ""The Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself", he is stating exactly what we believe. There is no need to explain or qualify; what he stated is what we believe.  However, as stated above, the reason for citing these people is really a response to EVs consistent attack on the concept of divinization, Theosis, or Exaltation.  They seem to not have any concept of becoming like God regardless of how that is defined.  The logic is why do you Protestants attack his teaching when it has been around for thousands of years?

[David T]

Ok, I guess I'm justing reading from within the context of past LDS apologetics.

Easy to do, and very understandable. You certainly won't be the last on either side of the fence to think it's affirming more than it is. Thanks for your candor and charity!

[Spammer]

Spammer, I think I have a good grasp of the concept being taught by both the Catholic and Orthodox churches, but I still have never understood the logic of the argument. If God wants to make us like him he can and will do it regardless of the difference in nature. It was the fact that because there was difference between the nature of God and the nature of his creatures that somehow that prevented God from causing us to become like him. Do you see the fallacy of the logic; the idea necessarily limits God's ability to change our nature.

 

I think we quote early Church Fathers because it is not radically different. When Irenaeus stated, ""The Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself", he is stating exactly what we believe. There is no need to explain or qualify; what he stated is what we believe.  However, as stated above, the reason for citing these people is really a response to EVs consistent attack on the concept of divinization, Theosis, or Exaltation.  They seem to not have any concept of becoming like God regardless of how that is defined.  The logic is why do you Protestants attack his teaching when it has been around for thousands of years?

 

Hey Stormrider, to understand the Orthodox view, you have to begin with the belief that God is uncreated, immaterial, Trinity, and that only the Son took on human flesh.  Our divinization makes us a divine-human being, like Christ, not like the Father, who is immaterial.  The Father does not have a body.  Even then, we won't be exactly like Christ since His divinity is uncreated, original, and one with the Father and the Holy Spirit.  There is only one God in three persons, not three Gods and three persons. If we became gods by nature, there would no longer be a Holy Trinity.  It would be a Holy Quartet, Quintet, Sextet etc., one God in innumerable persons.  This is ontologically impossible as there is only one God, only one divine nature, undivided, infinite, eternal, and uncreated.  The infinite cannot in principle be parsed, divided, shared, reduced, or added to, as it is endless and encompasses all things.  It utterly transcends any and all time and space.  It is ontologically impossible for us to become THAT.  What Irenaeus taught about theosis IS radically different from what the LDS church teaches because Irenaeus believed in the infinite, transcendent, immaterial God I just attempted (and failed) to adequately describe (an impossibility, given the contingent nature of our language). The Father is not a glorified man with a body of flesh and bone.  The Father does not have DNA.  He does not dwell on an earth somewhere or reside within any universe.  It's impossible for us to become the kind of god the Father is because we are contingent, material, created beings, necessarily tied to time and space.  God is omnipotent, but that does not mean God can engage in nonsense - turning contingent, material beings into uncreated, infinite beings.  How can the created become uncreated?  How can the finite become infinite?  At most, we become like Christ, who became man so that we might be like Him, just as Irenaeus said.  Even then, we won't be exactly like Christ.  Christ the infinite took on finite matter and divinized it, but remained infinite in his nature, simultaneously rooted in time and space and transcending it.  Even after our deification, there will still be an ontolgoical gulf between our created, human nature and Christ's uncreated, divine nature.  We won't possess a divine nature like Christ does.  Christ is fully man and fully God, not half God/half man.  The infinite is indivisible.  We will remain fully human beings who only participate in (partake of) the divine nature, not acquire it for ourselves.  God cannot shave off a piece of the infinite divine nature and give it to us.  The infinite must in principle be immaterial and one.  We will be gods by grace, not by nature.  We will remain material beings, but the matter will be transformed and divinized, infused and permeated by the divine energies.  But that divinity will only be 'borrowed', so to speak.

 

A clarification - I'm not a Protestant. I'm an Eastern Orthodox Christian.  Irenaeus, Clement, and Basil are our church fathers.  They have established feast days in our liturgical calendar and we venerate them on those days. 

Edited February 26, 2014 by Spammer

[BCSpace]

The article quotes Irenaeus, Clement, and Basil as if what they taught is the same as what the LDS Church teaches today, and that what they taught faded from prominence or was lost. Neither is true. I don't understand why LDS writers quote Orthodox-Catholic Christians to support their view that the early Christians believed what Mormons believe about deification. What those church fathers believed about deification (theosis) is exactly what the Orthodox Church believes to this day and has always believed about the ultimate destiny of mankind. In fact, the kind of God the quoted church fathers believed in (uncreated, immaterial, trinity) is the same orthodox-catholic God that I worship as an Orthodox Christian and that Roman Catholics worship. The doctrine of deification as understood by Irenaeus, Clement, and Basil never faded away, was never lost. There was no need for it to be restored. The authors also overstate the difference between the view of Dionysius the Areopagite and the other church fathers.  Since God is uncreated and we are created, Irenaeus, Clement, and Basil also believed that we would be deified and become like God insofar as it is possible for material, created beings to be like the immaterial, uncreated God.

 

This is not true at all.  The early Christians did not accept anything like the trinity and were closer to the Biblical conception of God.  For example, not even the later Tertullian and Theophilus would have accepted the doctrine of the trinity as it was later to become.  They were merely midpoints on the way to the development of that doctrine.

 

"One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the Ancient Church than the precursors of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin were, who considered the thought of such a substantial connection between God and man as the heresy, par excellence." Benz, E.W., Imago Dei:  Man in the Image of God, in Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism, 215-216

[Spammer]

This is not true at all.  The early Christians did not accept anything like the trinity and were closer to the Biblical conception of God.  For example, not even the later Tertullian and Theophilus would have accepted the doctrine of the trinity as it was later to become.  They were merely midpoints on the way to the development of that doctrine.

 

"One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the Ancient Church than the precursors of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin were, who considered the thought of such a substantial connection between God and man as the heresy, par excellence." Benz, E.W., Imago Dei:  Man in the Image of God, in Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism, 215-216

 

The supposed similarity between the modern LDS view and the ancient view of the ECFs is overstated.  Although there is a similar emphasis on deification, none of the quoted early church fathers believed that the Father has a body and is a glorified man. Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria believed in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and that the Father is immaterial and uncreated, and that the immaterial divine Logos took on matter and became man.  The same goes for Tertullian.  Irenaeus was also very clear about his belief in ex nihilo creation: the immaterial God created matter out of nothing.  Basil believed in the more developed Nicene dogma of the Trinity.  Augustine is not a doctor of the Eastern church.  He is revered, but his doctrine of original sin is considered a heresy, and is unrelated to the Orthodox conception of theosis.  Benz's assertion applies to the Roman church alone.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Spammer