Gospel Topics: Becoming Like God

[BCSpace]

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.

 

 

I don't think anyone is stating that the ECF believed exactly as LDS do.  However, they provide ample evidence that LDS-like doctrines were extent in the early Church which is what one would expect given the Universal Apostasy (also seemingly recognized by the ECF) and the doctrine of Theosis is a case in point.  Anthropomorphism and God's materiality are also extant.  The Clementine Homilies and Recognitions for example or the Gospel of Bartholomew and Melito, the Bishop of Sardis.  Origen himself admitted that God's corporeality was still an open question at the time (the transition between the Biblical God and the god of the philosophers):

 

We shall inquire, however, whether the thing which Greek philosophers call asomaton, or incorporeal, is found in holy Scripture under another name.  For it is also to be a subject of investigation how God himself is to be understood - whether as corporeal, and formed according to some shape, or of a different nature from bodies - a point which is not clearly indicated in our teaching.

Origen, De Principiis, Preface 9

 

As for Tertullian, he accepted some things that are contrary to later Orthodoxy but also more in line with what one would expect if LDS claims of Apostasy are true.  For example:

 

1) Tertullian still accepted that the "Divine Substance" was a material substance,

 

"Writers who are usually reckoned orthodox but who lived a century or two centuries before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian and Novatian and Justin Martyr, held some views which would later, in the fourth century, have been branded heretical.... Irenaeus and Tertullian both believed that God had not always been a Trinity but had at some point put forth the Son and the Spirit so as to be distinct from him. Tertullian, borrowing from Stoicism, believed that God was material (though only of a very refined material, a kind of thinking gas), so that his statement that Father, Son and Spirit were 'of one substance', beautifully orthodox though it sounds, was of a corporeality which would have profoundly shocked Origen, Athanasius and the Cappadocian theologians, had they known of it."

[Hansen, R., "The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD", in Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy, pp. 151-152.]

 

2) He does not accept uncreatedness as such when it comes to the Son and the Spirit:

 

"For from the moment when those things began to exist, over which the power of a Lord was to act, God, by the accession of that power, both became Lord and received the name thereof. Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father."

[Tertullian, Against Hermogenes 3, in ANF 3:478.]

 

3) The Son and Spirit were considered portions of the "Divine Substance", rather than interpenetrating "centers of consciousness" in a simple, indivisible "Divine Substance".

 

"For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: "My Father is greater than I." [T]he Paraclete [is] distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy."

[Tertullian, Against Praxeas 9, in ANF 3:603-604.]

 

4) Hence, the Father is first in rank and glory, while the Son and Spirit are second and third. Biblical subordinationism was later abandoned by the church:

 

"Whatever, therefore, was the substance of the Word that I designate a Person, I claim for it the name of Son; and while I recognize the Son, I assert His distinction as second to the Father."

[Tertullian, Against Praxeas 7, in ANF 3:602.]

 

Now what was that about an overstatement?

 

[BCSpace]

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.

 

Since you mentioned Irenaeus, it occurs to me that perhaps the main objection to LDS deification relative to the ECF version boils down to the notion that the uncreated cannot be as pure as the uncreated.  But Irenaeus himself, even though he accepts the notion of an uncreated God, provides of very LDS-like solution:

 

"But created things must be inferior to Him who created them, from the very fact of their later origin; for it was not possible for things recently created to have been uncreated.... He knew the infirmity of human beings, and the consequences which would flow from it; but through [His] love and [His] power, He shall overcome the substance of created nature. For it was necessary, at first, that nature should be exhibited; then, after that, that what was mortal should be conquered and swallowed up by immortality, and the corruptible by incorruptibility, and that man should be made after the image and likeness of God, having received the knowledge of good and evil."

[irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:38, in ANF 1:522.]

 

What a novel idea!  That created man can essentially be made uncreated by the Grace of God.  Irenaeus is essentially trying to have his cake and eat it too by holding on to the old notion of deification and still have a transcendent God who creates "ex nihilo".

Edited February 26, 2014 by BCSpace

[Spammer]

Are you saying that Tertullian's notion of the Father's material substance is the same as the LDS doctrine of the Father's tangible body of flesh and bone?

Regardless, Irenaeus, Clement, and Basil taught the Father is immaterial. As well, the fact that some of the ECFs held views about the origin of the Son and procession of the Spirit that were later deemed heretical is not evidence that any of them believed that God is a glorified man with arms, legs, bones, etc. not one ECF ever taught such a thing. At most we have Tertullian's 'material substance' and Origen's question about a corporeal 'shape'. As you know, both views were deemed heretical and neither Irenaeus, Clement, nor Basil believed any such thing. So why quote them? The essay in the OP references those fathers so my statement about overstated similarities within the essay stands.

[BCSpace]

Irenaeus also gives evidence that the notion of another God above God was at least sometimes contemplated and the answer is merely not to speculate:

 

"The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge; for this reason, that we, too, as long as we are connected with the scheme of things in this world, should leave perfect knowledge, and such questions [as have been mentioned], to God, and should not by any chance, while we seek to investigate the sublime nature of the Father, fall into the danger of starting the question whether there is another God above God."

[irenaeus, Against Heresies 2:27:8, in ANF 1:402.]

 

He also says, in the same section, that we shouldn't speculate about what God was doing before he created the world.  Joseph Smith has some new revelation of the subject:

 

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!"

[BCSpace]

As you know, both views were deemed heretical and neither Irenaeus, Clement, nor Basil believed any such thing.

 

 

Yes, they would be considered heretical by orthodox Christians today even.

 

So why quote them?

 

Because they give evidence that LDS-like doctrines were extant or they taught some of them themselves.  They also show a distinct evolution from Biblical orthodoxy, of which LDS doctrine is the closest, to the apostate doctrines (or lack thereof) extant today among non LDS christians.  Such as, as we've demonstrated, the anthropomorphic corporeality of God to an immaterial abstract God.

Edited February 26, 2014 by BCSpace

[pogi]

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.

 

I too shy away from the term "polytheism" as we only have one Father to whom we give all glory, yet I find "monotheism" to be an inadequate and inaccurate depiction of our beliefs.  With no disrespect to Brigham Young, that quote complicates the issue for me.  The first problem is that this quote was in reference to Adam as being the only God with which we have to do, a belief which I do not subscribe to.  Even if it was in reference to our Heavenly Father, I still have problems with it in that my Heavenly Father is not the only God with which I have to do.  I have very much to do with Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost as they are members of the Godhead and worthy of my worship.

 

In practice, we worship only one God as the Father and give all glory to Him, but we also worship the other members of the Godhead  in their respective roles to the Father as indicated by this quote (and many others):

 

Jesus Christ is the central figure in the doctrine and practice of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He is the Redeemer.[viii] He is the prototype of all saved beings, the standard of salvation.[ix] Jesus explained that “no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). We acknowledge Jesus Christ as the source of truth and redemption, as the light and life of the world, as the way to the Father (John 14:6; 2 Nephi 25:29; 3 Nephi 11:11). We worship Him in that we look to Him for deliverance and redemption and seek to emulate His matchless life (D&C 93:12–20). Truly, as one Book of Mormon prophet proclaimed, “We talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, ... that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins” (2 Nephi 25:26). - www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/what-mormons-believe-about-jesus-christ

 

And this one:

 

"Latter-day Saints worship Jesus Christ as their Savior and Redeemer." - http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-101

 

If someone asked me if Jesus is my God, I don't think I would be wrong to say yes, qualifying that he is not the Father but is indeed a member of the Godhead which I worship through ritual and practice.  I understand that for all intents and purposes they are one God and perhaps that is how many Mormons become comfortable describing themselves as monotheistic.  I for one am not comfortable describing myself as monotheistic in that I believe there are other Gods worthy of worship who are not members of my Godhead.

 

I came across a term today which perhaps best describes Mormonism in my view.  The word is "henotheism".  It is defined as "the worship of one god without denying the existence of other gods." - www.merriam-webster.com

 

Give this following link a read, I think it is the most accurate description of what we believe, but not perfect.  Any thoughts?

 

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Henotheism.html

 

The fact is that our belief in a multiplicity of Gods separates us from other Christians.  Which is why we should be content to live under a separate umbrella from monotheism.  We are different, why do we label ourselves the same as everybody else?  I understand that it doesn't really change anything in the end, but it just seems appropriate to be under a separate nomenclature .

Edited February 26, 2014 by pogi

[BCSpace]

I came across a term today which perhaps best describes Mormonism in my view.  The word is "henotheism".  It is defined as "the worship of one god without denying the existence of other gods." - www.merriam-webster.com

 

Give this following link a read, I think it accurately captures our beliefs under the term "henothism."  Any thoughts?

 

I agree that we are not polytheistic.  However, henotheism to me presents a similar problem.  I used to think that henotheism was perhaps the best explanation, but that would entail for example, us identifying with and praying to the Father in general, but then also praying to the other Gods to get around the Father or because the Father is not as expert in some area but one of the other Gods is.  For example, anciently, one might have adopted Zeus as one's god, but on a sea voyage, make sacrifice to Poseidon just in case.

 

Check out:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolatry

 

The article has a section on the LDS view.

 

I personally stick with Monotheism.

Edited February 26, 2014 by BCSpace

[thesometimesaint]

So just the god of this world?

 

No.

[Storm Rider]

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. 

 

I understood that you were Eastern Orthodox.  However, the reason we use early Church Fathers is because what they state firmly supports Divinization and/or Theosis, which some Protestants have attacked so vehemently.  LDS apologists are not and have never said we believe exactly like the early Church Fathers, but it puts the Protestants are a very poor foundation to deny the possibility of any form of Divinization.

 

To be clear, from a philosophical or logical position I find it difficult, if not impossible, to believe that God is prevented from doing what he chooses. If he says I will make you (fill in the blank) then he can do it. No amount of philosophical supposition can prevent God from doing exactly what he says. So attempting to say, God cannot make his creatures XYZ just does not hold water. If he says you will become gods; you will become gods. Not a demi-god, a half-way god, or something less. God is the one who knows what he you will be and no amount of equivocation will minimize the reality that you will become a god.

 

I have never really felt good about that type of equivocation; Jesus became man so that you understand that you will become god(s)....but not really. I just take it at face value and I think most LDS take scripture at face value.  

[Storm Rider]

I agree that we are not polytheistic.  However, henotheism to me presents a similar problem.  I used to think that henotheism was perhaps the best explanation, but that would entail for example, us identifying with and praying to the Father in general, but then also praying to the other Gods to get around the Father or because the Father is not as expert in some area but one of the other Gods is.  For example, anciently, one might have adopted Zeus as one's god, but on a sea voyage, make sacrifice to Poseidon just in case.

 

Check out:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolatry

 

The article has a section on the LDS view.

 

I personally stick with Monotheism.

 

I rejected Henotheism to describe my beliefs because I don't believe in a pantheon of Gods. I have always felt most comfortable with thinking I was a monotheist.  Having said that I recognize that some might call me a polytheist because I believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit; three separate and distinct persons, which is exactly what the Trinity states. What I don't try to do is create a concept of one substance.  The great mystery of the Trinity is that three persons are really one because of this Platonic concept of substance. This philosophical construct used to get around the need for monotheism is not something I play.  The Jews and Muslims who attack Christians for being polytheists have a pretty firm foundation for their attack.  If LDS are polytheists then so are all other Christians. 

[BCSpace]

The Jews and Muslims who attack Christians for being polytheists have a pretty firm foundation for their attack.

 

I can understand why one would come to that conclusion IF they merely used the dictionary definition and admittedly, that is the definition most people use.  However, it is more accurate to use it in the nuanced way an anthropologist would which is the distinction I make.

[pogi]

I agree that we are not polytheistic.  However, henotheism to me presents a similar problem.  I used to think that henotheism was perhaps the best explanation, but that would entail for example, us identifying with and praying to the Father in general, but then also praying to the other Gods to get around the Father or because the Father is not as expert in some area but one of the other Gods is.  For example, anciently, one might have adopted Zeus as one's god, but on a sea voyage, make sacrifice to Poseidon just in case.

 

Check out:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolatry

 

The article has a section on the LDS view.

 

I personally stick with Monotheism.

 

Thanks for the link.  I can see how henotheism can pose a problem in that it allows for the worship of other Gods, but monolatry absolves that problem.  From your link it says "to the extent that monolatry is considered not-monotheism, the classification of Mormonism as monolatrous is strongly disputed among Latter-day Saints."  It appears that the only problem Mormons have with the term monolatry is that it is not monotheism.  I don't get that.  We are different from everybody else, why do we try so hard to be the same?  I have no qualms with anybody who wants to call themselves monotheistic or polytheistic or whatever, so long as they practice our religion as taught by the prophets.  

 

My problem with monotheism is that it doesn't accurately describe us.  Besides the Godhead, there are other Gods.  Ours is not the only one.  I like monolatry - thanks!

 

Henotheism has sometimes been called "inclusive monotheism" or "monarchial polytheism".  If I were to coin a term for Mormonism, it would be "patriarchal polytheism" where our Heavenly Father is our God while at the same time acknowledging the existence of other Heavenly Fathers for other worlds.  Polytheism and monotheism both fall short of an accurate depiction of our beliefs. 

[Spammer]

Since you mentioned Irenaeus, it occurs to me that perhaps the main objection to LDS deification relative to the ECF version boils down to the notion that the uncreated cannot be as pure as the uncreated.  But Irenaeus himself, even though he accepts the notion of an uncreated God, provides of very LDS-like solution:

 

"But created things must be inferior to Him who created them, from the very fact of their later origin; for it was not possible for things recently created to have been uncreated.... He knew the infirmity of human beings, and the consequences which would flow from it; but through [His] love and [His] power, He shall overcome the substance of created nature. For it was necessary, at first, that nature should be exhibited; then, after that, that what was mortal should be conquered and swallowed up by immortality, and the corruptible by incorruptibility, and that man should be made after the image and likeness of God, having received the knowledge of good and evil."

[irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:38, in ANF 1:522.]

 

What a novel idea!  That created man can essentially be made uncreated by the Grace of God.  Irenaeus is essentially trying to have his cake and eat it too by holding on to the old notion of deification and still have a transcendent God who creates "ex nihilo".

 

Thank you for providing these quotes from Irenaeus.  I agree that Irenaeus's orthodox view of created being made uncreated can be seen as quite similar to the LDS view, though as an Orthodox Christian it's evident to me that how that happens is that created nature acquires the characteristics of the uncreated, not that the created is made uncreated by divine fiat.  But that may just be splitting hairs.  The effect, despite the ontological gulf between the natures in Irenaeus's view, is undoubtedly the same and to me that's what really counts.  I'd say that the LDS and Orthodox view of the effects are quite similar.

[Spammer]

Irenaeus also gives evidence that the notion of another God above God was at least sometimes contemplated and the answer is merely not to speculate:

 

"The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge; for this reason, that we, too, as long as we are connected with the scheme of things in this world, should leave perfect knowledge, and such questions [as have been mentioned], to God, and should not by any chance, while we seek to investigate the sublime nature of the Father, fall into the danger of starting the question whether there is another God above God."

[irenaeus, Against Heresies 2:27:8, in ANF 1:402.]

 

He also says, in the same section, that we shouldn't speculate about what God was doing before he created the world.  Joseph Smith has some new revelation of the subject:

 

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!"

 

If you read the rest of the referenced chapter in Against Heresies, you'll see that this quote from Irenaeus is part of his refutation of the gnostic systems of Valentinus and Basilides, which derived from Platonism and posited a demiurge who created the world out of pre-existent matter, and who emerged through a series of divine emanations (pleroma) from a higher God.  In this section of his book, and elsewhere, Irenaeus seeks to refute this notion of a God above God and the gnostic system it comes from.  Elsewhere in his book, Irenaeus discusses the same teaching and says "to say that God is the image of another Father, is to play the part both of wanderers from the truth, and of absolutely foolish and stupid persons." [Against Heresies, 4:19:1, in ANF 1:487].  Thus, it wasn't Irenaeus or anyone in his church organization who thought there might be a God above God.  It was the gnostic heretics who taught this and, as is well known, they were the primary target of his book.  In this respect, Joseph Smith's view is thus closer to gnosticism.  In light of this, I'll ask again, why quote Orthodox Catholic ECF's like Irenaeus, Clement, and Basil when LDS authors can just as easily quote Valentinus, who believed in both theosis AND that our God has a God above him?  Yet, I've never seen any LDS writer quote Valentinus to provide evidence of the ancient provenance of the LDS doctrine of deification.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Spammer

[Spammer]

I understood that you were Eastern Orthodox.  However, the reason we use early Church Fathers is because what they state firmly supports Divinization and/or Theosis, which some Protestants have attacked so vehemently.  LDS apologists are not and have never said we believe exactly like the early Church Fathers, but it puts the Protestants are a very poor foundation to deny the possibility of any form of Divinization.

 

To be clear, from a philosophical or logical position I find it difficult, if not impossible, to believe that God is prevented from doing what he chooses. If he says I will make you (fill in the blank) then he can do it. No amount of philosophical supposition can prevent God from doing exactly what he says. So attempting to say, God cannot make his creatures XYZ just does not hold water. If he says you will become gods; you will become gods. Not a demi-god, a half-way god, or something less. God is the one who knows what he you will be and no amount of equivocation will minimize the reality that you will become a god.

 

I have never really felt good about that type of equivocation; Jesus became man so that you understand that you will become god(s)....but not really. I just take it at face value and I think most LDS take scripture at face value.  

 

I agree with you that Protestants don't have a leg to stand on.  Thanks for helping me to better understand why LDS writers continue to quote the patristic literature.  

 

I also agree that God can do what He chooses.  For me, the conundrum of an omnipotent being unable to change the created into uncreated is like the classic atheist puzzle that asks whether God can make a rock so big he can't lift it.  Neither problem refutes the omnipotence of God as the juxtaposition of such mutually exclusive concepts produces nonsense and needs not be considered.  Changing the created into uncreated and God's creation of a rock too big for him to lift are logical paradoxes, like creating a square circle or a quadrangular triangle.  All of these examples are logically incoherent and are impossible in principle.  God's inability to do the logically impossible does not impugn his omnipotence.  I too take the promise of deification at face value, I just accept that God's nature prevents Him from engaging in nonsense.  He cannot create square circles and cannot make the created uncreated. 

Edited February 26, 2014 by Spammer

[Spammer]

Yes, they would be considered heretical by orthodox Christians today even.

 

 

Because they give evidence that LDS-like doctrines were extant or they taught some of them themselves.  They also show a distinct evolution from Biblical orthodoxy, of which LDS doctrine is the closest, to the apostate doctrines (or lack thereof) extant today among non LDS christians.  Such as, as we've demonstrated, the anthropomorphic corporeality of God to an immaterial abstract God.

 

At most, the evidence you've cited only shows that Tertullian held to something kind of, sort of like the LDS view in that he believed that God is made of some kind of substance (if we want to call Tertullian's amorphous divine substance and Mormonism's embodied deity similar) and that Origen noted that the opinions of various fathers were contradictory.  The jury was still out for Origen, it seems. 

 

Let's consider Tertullian some more.  Even if we grant a (very) loose similarity between Tertullian's view of the Father as some kind of material substance out of which the Divine Logos emerged and the LDS belief in a corporeal God of flesh and bone, Tertullian still believed that the divine substance itself is uncreated.  He also believed in ex nihilo creation (same as Origen).  Therefore, God's 'substance' and what we call matter are different things.  Calling any of this "LDS-like" is a real stretch. Tertullian's beliefs on the nature of God and the creation are very different from Mormonism. There is no hint that Tertullian believed that the Father is a glorified man with a body of flesh and bones who organized the universe out of co-eternal matter and created spirit children from a co-eternal pool of intelligences.  But even If we accept that Tertullian's view is closest to the LDS view (even though really is very far off), Tertullian was still the odd man out among the church fathers quoted in the article referenced in the OP.  Ireneaus and Clement were Tertullian's contemporaries and they did not accept that God is corporeal or made of any kind of material substance.  As we've seen, Irenaeus believed in an immaterial God who created matter out of nothing.  Basil lived two centuries later and had the same belief as a proponent of Nicene orthodoxy.  One question I have is, as the odd man out, where did Tertullian get his somewhat views about God's nature?  Who was his teacher?  Irenaeus, for example, was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John the Beloved. 

Edited February 27, 2014 by Spammer

[theplains]

LDS apologists are not and have never said we believe exactly like the early Church Fathers, but it puts the Protestants are a very poor foundation to deny the possibility of any form of Divinization.  

 

Genesis 3:22-23 says, "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know

good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and

live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from

whence he was taken". 

 

In LDS theology, does "becoming as one of us" mean Adam and Eve had become gods (as they

were not gods before), divine (as they were not divine before), or just like God (but not divine)?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[guerreiro9]

Genesis 3:22-23 says, "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know

good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and

live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from

whence he was taken".

In LDS theology, does "becoming as one of us" mean Adam and Eve had become gods (as they

were not gods before), divine (as they were not divine before), or just like God (but not divine)?

Thanks,

Jim

Didn't you answer your own question?

"Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil"

-guerreiro9

[Cold Steel]

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..."

 

The reason one never finds this question answered is because the terms are difficult to define. Mormons believe in ONE God, but it's a continuum. By that I mean "a continuous extent, succession, or whole, no part of which can be distinguished from neighboring parts except by arbitrary division."

 

The term "quorum" is singular, but a quorum can contain many members. God also is singular in Hebrew scripture, but there are clearly plural elements of God in both Hebrew and Christian scripture. As Christians, we believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all "one." But in what sense? Christ prayed to the Father concerning the Twelve: "...that they may be ONE, even as we are ONE." The two words "even as" is the key to understanding our entire concept of God. And early Christianity's.

 

Oddly, the Christian scriptures rarely ever connect Christ as God, or Yahweh. The reason is most likely similar to the reason we do the Texas Two-Step when it comes to plurality of gods. One can see Jesus' godhood in the New Testament writings, but most of the apostles refer to "God" and "his son, Jesus Christ." And while being stoned, Stephen wasn't quoted as seeing Jesus sitting on the right hand of the Father, but "of God." The writers knew their audience and they often backed away from saying that Jesus was God. It was a sticky issue because the Christians said he was the Son of God. The Jews could, and did, say, "Well, was he God or the Son of God? Make up your minds?" This wasn't lost on the Muslims--not for a moment. They say it doesn't matter what Christians say; they're all polytheists. So our problem as Mormons is only one step removed from that of many of our critics. What we LDS are hesitant to say is that if three can be one, why can't four, or five, or fifty or more? Why not five hundred or five million?

 

Until about 1940 or so we thought the Milky Way Galaxy was it. Then things changed exponentially. Now we speak of multiple universes. What if our universe is only one of billions? If so, does a continuum of gods working as "one" seem so far fetched?

 

So if we Mormons are polytheistic, then so were the first century Christians. What do YOU think?

[pogi]

The reason one never finds this question answered is because the terms are difficult to define. 

 

If we are only using the two classifications of monotheism vs polytheism, then I agree that we don't really fit neatly in either.  That would have been a better answer than what they gave.  Maybe that's what they tried to say, but it seemed a little ambiguous to me.  

I feel that my beliefs fall most neatly under the umbrella of monolatry.  That is the term that I will personally use to describe my beliefs. The whole monotheism vs polytheism thing is too messy.  I don't feel any holy attachment or sacred responsibility to the term "monotheism".

 

 Mormons believe in ONE God, but it's a continuum. By that I mean "a continuous extent, succession, or whole, no part of which can be distinguished from neighboring parts except by arbitrary division."

 

If you want to define God as a continuum, that is fine, but I think that complicates what God (or a God) really is for me.  To me, the continuum God approaches the indescribable, mysterious and unapproachable God of the Catholics.  For me, each God does have distinguishing characteristics, parts and even names.  I do not find the distinction of two separate souls an "arbitrary division" by any means.  The only thing they share perhaps is honor, glory, priesthood, law, and the intelligence necessary for exaltation. The article does not use the singular continuum God, but uses the plural "gods"  as used in scripture to explain our belief in divination.   I can understand why others are confused when we try to clam that we are monotheists as most Mormons try to claim.  Why cant we just accept that we are a triangle and stop trying to fit into the circle or the square?  That's why I prefer monolatry over monotheism or polytheism.  I think this classification would clear up a lot of the confusion and help us to avoid a lot of hopeless and pointless debates as to why we are monotheists which the rest of Christianity will never accept us as anyway.  I agree with the rest of Christianity, we don't belong under that umbrella.  It is not fitting. 

Edited February 28, 2014 by pogi

[Cold Steel]

If you want to define God as a continuum, that is fine, but I think that complicates what God (or a God) really is for me. To me, the continuum God approaches the indescribable, mysterious and unapproachable God of the Catholics. For me, each God does have distinguishing characteristics, parts and even names. I do not find the distinction of two separate souls an “arbitrary division” by any means. The only thing they share perhaps is honor, glory, priesthood, law, and the intelligence necessary for exaltation. The article does not use the singular continuum God, but uses the plural “gods” as used in scripture to explain our belief in divination. I can understand why others are confused when we try to clam that we are monotheists as most Mormons try to claim. Why cant we just accept that we are a triangle and stop trying to fit into the circle or the square?

 

Well, one day we’ll understand it fully. I just get a bit nipped when other Christians condemn us for being polytheists when they are, for the most part, as polytheistic as we. The only difference is in number. There are problems saying that the Father, without the Son, isn’t God. If there is only one God and trillions of universes, each with trillions of galaxies, and each galaxy having billions of stars and habitable planets, it would be quite a feat. We mortals are like children with tiny minds and conceptions, and our views about monotheism and polytheism are so pathetically limited that we cant even begin to speak intelligently about it.

 

This is not intended to be an insult in any way, but as an observation. It’s only natural that all beings have peers, and if one examines Genesis 1 and other passages that have to do with a plurality of gods, or a council of gods, in the beginning, things begin to appear a bit more rationally. To me, it makes sense that God would be a continuum. Each being would be a part of  a greater whole. In other words, it makes infinitely more sense than one super being (who happens to look human) just existing with no reason whatsoever and creating worlds indiscriminately.

 

.

[Storm Rider]

 

Genesis 3:22-23 says, "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know

good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and

live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from

whence he was taken". 

 

In LDS theology, does "becoming as one of us" mean Adam and Eve had become gods (as they

were not gods before), divine (as they were not divine before), or just like God (but not divine)?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

Morning Jim, I have always read this scripture as a whole rather than in a parsed manner. For example, "the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil" phrase I have always read as a whole; Adam came to know the difference between good and evil, which is a step toward becoming like God. However, there was still a long way to go. It is evident that becoming like god was not a condition we can attain except through Jesus Christ. The concept of eternal progression, for me, is meant to be applied to us, but it is not a regressive concept and does not apply to God. That is just me and others feel differently.  My problem with that whole concept is all that is achieved is to take it back a generation or two; there is/was a First Cause and God is it. 

 

It is my belief that when the scriptures tell us that we are gods they are speaking in the context of 1) it is God's will that we become like him, 2) that we have a measure of divinity inside of us; God is our Father, 3) godhood is the result of the freely given gift of the Atonement combined with a heart that seeks to follow Him.

[Robert F. Smith]

If you read the rest of the referenced chapter in Against Heresies, you'll see that this quote from Irenaeus is part of his refutation of the gnostic systems of Valentinus and Basilides, which derived from Platonism and posited a demiurge who created the world out of pre-existent matter, and who emerged through a series of divine emanations (pleroma) from a higher God.  In this section of his book, and elsewhere, Irenaeus seeks to refute this notion of a God above God and the gnostic system it comes from.  Elsewhere in his book, Irenaeus discusses the same teaching and says "to say that God is the image of another Father, is to play the part both of wanderers from the truth, and of absolutely foolish and stupid persons." [Against Heresies, 4:19:1, in ANF 1:487].  Thus, it wasn't Irenaeus or anyone in his church organization who thought there might be a God above God.  It was the gnostic heretics who taught this and, as is well known, they were the primary target of his book.  In this respect, Joseph Smith's view is thus closer to gnosticism.  In light of this, I'll ask again, why quote Orthodox Catholic ECF's like Irenaeus, Clement, and Basil when LDS authors can just as easily quote Valentinus, who believed in both theosis AND that our God has a God above him?  Yet, I've never seen any LDS writer quote Valentinus to provide evidence of the ancient provenance of the LDS doctrine of deification.

You need to read more Nibley!

In his FARMS Preliminary Report N-APO, "Apocryphal Writings," p. 13, Hugh Nibley interpreted the meaning underlying many sorts of this class of writing, and notes that

 

All the worlds are organized in a common pattern, . . in all the worlds you will find God alone rules but with a presidency of three and a council of twelve.  This is the rule of all worlds.  The repetitions are infinite in number and scope . . . .  As a Yeu becomes a Father, the Father then appoints new Yeus (Jehovahs) for new worlds who in turn become Fathers, etc. (cf. First Jeu 48:8; 50:1-3; 97:25-28; Pistis Sophia I, 91, 94; III, 285, 319, 329-330; IV, 355:15,23, 370:10,19,24).

[Robert F. Smith]

Although I cannot at present tell whether BCSpace's version of this Benz quote is correct, I have a slightly different version:

 

Non-Mormon Ernst Benz has said of the Mormon doctrine of apotheosis: 

 

Regardless of how one feels about the doctrine of progressive deification, one thing is certain: Joseph Smith's anthropology of man is closer to the concept of man in the primitive church than that of the proponents of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, who considered the idea of such a fundamental and corporeal relationship between God and man as the quintessential heresy.*

 

Based on the anthropomorphic descriptions of God in the Bible, Jewish scholar Yohanan Muffs insists that “[T]he biblical God is anthropomorphic.  Whoever strips God of his personal quality distorts the true meaning of Scripture.”**  However, it might be added, “only the most holy people are spared death in the presence of God.” ***

 

*  Benz, "Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God," in T. Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism (Provo, 1978), 201-219.

**  Muffs, Bible Review, 18/6 (Dec 2002), 23; cf. Ronald Hendel, "Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel," in K. van der Toorn, ed., The Image and the Book (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 205-228; Benjamin Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge University Press, 2009); Esther J. Hamori, "When Gods Were Men": The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature (de Gruyter, 2008).

***  R. Hendel, "Aniconism," in van der Toorn, ed., The Image and the Book, 222.

[Thinking]

To live in the highest part of the celestial kingdom is called exaltation* or eternal life. To be able to live in this part of the celestial kingdom, people must have been married in the temple and must have kept the sacred promises they made in the temple. They will receive everything our Father in Heaven has and will become like Him. They will even be able to have spirit children and make new worlds for them to live on, and do all the things our Father in Heaven has done. Link