DiscussMormonism.com

Some Mormon professor guy has written an article published in the Deseret News opining that the "restoration" of the doctrine of "theosis" (i.e., that humans can progress to become gods) was (a) not scandalous and (b) actually a "miracle." But the evidence assembled to support this assertion leads to precisely the opposite conclusion. In a bizarre act of mental gymnastics, the author of the article argues that the doctrine of theosis was taught in the Bible and by such early Christian luminaries as St. Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and St. Jerome. The Bible and these authors were well known to religious people in Europe and America. Joseph Smith was certainly familiar with their works and, of course, with the Bible, where the author says the doctrine is to be found. So, how is it a "miracle" that someone teaches a doctrine, even one considered by perhaps the majority as heretical, that was known for millennia?
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700168175/Joseph-Smiths-restoration-of-theosis-was-miracle-not-scandal.html

Mormons redefining Catholic belief, taken out of context, and twisted into something it never was....it only shows that Mormon belief cannot be supported on its own. People have to go quote mining. It looks desperate.

Yeah, the only problem is that the Mormon concept of exaltation has very little to do with the Orthodox doctrine of theosis. Since Orthodox have always been around I also don't know how you restore something that was never lost.

The main reason the Mormon concept has nothing to do with Orthodox doctrine of theosis is basically because the Orthodox views on God and man are completely different from the Mormon ones. I know that pointing out vast differences in how these two basic terms are defined in the respective camps will be seen as nitpicking by some, but there you go.

If you want a long blog post by an Orthodox Christian as to why Mormons trying to co-opt theosis doesn't work see here:

http://energeticprocession.wordpress.co ... ification/

Of course you are right: theosis and the Mormon doctrine of exaltation (which they don't all seem to teach anymore-- see, e.g., this Chat session with Mormon missionary "Chad" http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.php/discussions/viewthread/29608/) are different, so I am not sure why the author of the piece did not explain that. The idea that it is a "miracle" that Joseph Smith took a common, though not necessarily uncontroversial, doctrine, added a few twists to it and re-packaged it as some sort of grand "revelation" is absurd. The article simply demonstrates that, as with just about every major doctrine "revealed" by Joseph Smith, he was plagiarizing others and pawning it off as something new and different.

Yes, well, there is that Mormon article of faith that anything worthy or of good report is to be sought after. Of course this will create a syncretic religion that is a bit of this a bit of that.

To the article specifically, it would be nice if the quotes lifted out of Catholic sources had been sited. Either a serious rebuttal is not expected or wanted, and/or, we wouldn't want the LDS faithful to go looking things up on their own and actually reading them in context.

madeleine wrote:
To the article specifically, it would be nice if the quotes lifted out of Catholic sources had been sited. Either a serious rebuttal is not expected or wanted, and/or, we wouldn't want the LDS faithful to go looking things up on their own and actually reading them in context.

Probably both, does the DN print opinion pieces contrary to LDS beliefs?

I'm lost on the "restoration" part. It wasn't just ancient Christians and Jews who had a version of deification. John Calvin and (arguably) Martin Luther believed in forms of deification. And of course, it isn't like the Eastern Orthodox churches weren't teaching theosis in Joseph Smith's day.

I did a lengthy blog post on this a few years ago, which was later re-published at the Patheos Mormonism Gateway:

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additi ... ation.html

The early Christians absolutely taught that "God became man so that men may become gods". No doubt about that. But there is nothing in their writings to suggest they believed they had to learn secret handshakes or secret words in order to do this. Also, there is nothing in their writings to suggest they believed that the gods would be creating worlds or having spirit-children.

What did they mean by "gods"? In my opinion, they meant only that Christians would have everlasting life "like" the Greek gods (i.e. they would be immortals). There are a few writings (such as Irenaeus and St. Ephreim of Syria) that say that Christians will become "Adams" and "Eves" and inherit "Gardens of Eden" and that is also what Brigham Young taught, and that is also taught in the Qu'ran (Holy Book of Islaam).

There is nothing in the writings of the early Christians to suggest they believed when they became "gods" they would create planets, or have spirit-children, but a few early Christian writers did say that Christians would inherit Paradise which they said was like the Garden of Eden.

The "official" teachings of the Orthodox Churches (Greek, Russian, Antiochian, Assyrian, Coptic, etc.) is that Christians will become "gods" if they "keep the commandments" of the Church.

The "official" teachings of the Roman Catholic Church is that men may become "gods" if they die in a State of Grace (i.e. have partaken of the Eucharist and not committed any venial or mortal sin), and of course they are a member of the Catholic or Orthodox rites.
Most Roman Catholics are totally UNAWARE that their Church teaches that men and women may become "gods".

daheshism wrote:The early Christians absolutely taught that "God became man so that men may become gods". No doubt about that. But there is nothing in their writings to suggest they believed they had to learn secret handshakes or secret words in order to do this. Also, there is nothing in their writings to suggest they believed that the gods would be creating worlds or having spirit-children.

What did they mean by "gods"? In my opinion, they meant only that Christians would have everlasting life "like" the Greek gods (i.e. they would be immortals). There are a few writings (such as Irenaeus and St. Ephreim of Syria) that say that Christians will become "Adams" and "Eves" and inherit "Gardens of Eden" and that is also what Brigham Young taught, and that is also taught in the Qu'ran (Holy Book of Islaam).

There is nothing in the writings of the early Christians to suggest they believed when they became "gods" they would create planets, or have spirit-children, but a few early Christian writers did say that Christians would inherit Paradise which they said was like the Garden of Eden.

The first flaw for Mormonism using Catholic sources is the understanding of divinity itself. Mormons and Catholics (east and west) differ greatly on this. The difference between creature and Creator, is one of nature and being.

We become by grace what we are not by nature. That is the clearest explanation of the difference that you will ever read. We partake of the divine nature, we do not become that nature.

The "official" teachings of the Orthodox Churches (Greek, Russian, Antiochian, Assyrian, Coptic, etc.) is that Christians will become "gods" if they "keep the commandments" of the Church.

I don't know how official that is.

The "official" teachings of the Roman Catholic Church is that men may become "gods" if they die in a State of Grace (i.e. have partaken of the Eucharist and not committed any venial or mortal sin), and of course they are a member of the Catholic or Orthodox rites.
Most Roman Catholics are totally UNAWARE that their Church teaches that men and women may become "gods".

Both east and west, Catholic and Orthodox, teach that Salvation is in and through Jesus Christ. We are judged at the moment of our death. Those judged to be with God will know God in an immediate fashion. This immediate knowledge of God is called the beatific vision by Catholics and theosis by the Orthodox.

All Catholics are aware of the Beatific Vision, as all Catholics understand the communion of saints. Those who we believe are in the immediate presence of God now.

It is in and through the Sacraments that the life to come is understood, and for both east and west, the Eucharist is central to understanding what it means to partake of the divine nature. Taking God into ourselves, you know that old saying, you are what you eat?

The Sacraments prefigure the life to come, just as the sacrifice of the lamb prefigured the Sacrifice of the Lamb of God.

When Mormons glean Catholic writings, picking out this and that, they throw away the context of those writings. Which include the Catholic teachings on divinity, Trinity, Eucharist, and everything else. If Mormons are going to accept Catholic teaching regarding theosis from Catholic sources, then they logically must accept Catholic teaching on all the other topics they reject. Mormons don't of course, they throw them away for the sake of supporting thoughts and ideas that arose in the 19th century.

These are CATHOLIC writings, and those who wrote them had the same understanding as I have written here. There is no Mormon "theology" in Catholic writings. To believe so is a fantasy at best, dishonest "scholarship" at the worst.

Hope that helps.

Peace.