A Hoped Logically Consistent View of Deification

[TOmNossor]

I wrote much of the below and then didn’t get around to posting it. In response to real life, I developed a desire to start a thread titled, “Why Deification” or “Why not Deification,” but realizing the below was not done I thought I would do it.

“A Hoped Logically Consistent View of Deification”
This will be my attempt to offer what I believe about LDS deification thought and its consistency. I will attempt to respond to charges of illogic by explaining how they fail (assuming I do not think they are valid). I will not promise to not ALSO analogously point at a similar aspect of non-LDS theology in addition to trying to resolve the charge. While I recognize the “tu quoque” logical fallacy, I am not a LDS because I believe there are no issues with being a LDS. I am a LDS because of the great positives within the CoJCoLDS and the scarcity of issues relative to other paths I could walk with God.

The first thing I wanted to begin with is the concept of “divinity as such.” This is very important because I think the charge of “illogical” is frequently predicated upon weighing LDS thought within a non-LDS framework. If the definition of God includes attribute A and not attribute B in the mind of a Catholic person and then as a LDS I say that men receive attribute A added to attribute B, a charge of illogical might be forthcoming. But if “divinity as such” in the LDS paradigm has no “not attribute B” within its definition, then this charge is a product of weighing LDS thought with Catholic presupposition.

I am a Social Trinitarian. I believe the Bible teaches there is One God. This teaching within the Bible comes in three different ways (at least). As a Social Trinitarian two of them are important to me. To talk about the first I like to begin with “God is love.” There is a mutually indwelling love that exists between three eternal persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. This love creates a bond and emanates from them like light to all. This love binds them as One God and vivifies the universe from the One God. So, the One God is the Social Trinity which is the indwelling love of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The other important use of “one God” language in the Bible refers rather directly to God the Father. God the Father is the One God. St. Irenaeus regularly spoke of God the Father as the One God and never spoke of God the Son as “the One God.” As a Social Trinitarian I maintain some subordination within the God head. God the Father is the “fons divinitatis” or fount of divinity. An integral part of divinity is the indwelling love and communion with God the Father as He is in a sense, the One God.

So, if there is One God who is God the Father, then the idea that we would become this One God would involve supplanting God the Father. Supplanting God the Father is IMO foreign to the teachings of the Bible, the CoJCoLDS, and is just not something that is associated with deification.

In my opinion the New Testament have a two very important threads related to this question woven through it. Jesus Christ is the revelation of God the Father. If you were living in Jerusalem and wanted to know what God was like (God the Father or God), you would do well to observe God the Son. Jesus Christ was God the Son so that mankind could know what God was like. “If you know me, then you will also know my Father. From now on you do know him and have seen him" (John 14:7) AND “Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Corinthians 4:4).

The other thread is that through Christ (His atonement, His example, His love, …) we are to become like Him. We are to become like Christ. We should follow His example, but it is He who will work a work within us and make us to be like Him. “For those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son” (Romans 8:29). The exchange formula is well expressed by Irenaeus, ““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” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book 5 preface). Or CCC #460 for that matter.

cont …

 

[TOmNossor]

So, I assert that there is One God who is the perfect indwelling unity of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. That God the Father is the “fons divinitatis” and thus the Son and the Holy Spirit align with Him (the Son conforms His will to the Father’s will, but I would generally not say that Father conforms His will to the Son’s. I am sure there is no conflict, but the Father is the Head). We are to become united to the Father and the Trinity through the atonement worked out by and strength given from the Son. We are to become united to the Father and the Trinity through the witness and guidance of the Spirit. And we are to become united to the Father and the Trinity drawn by the perfect love that comes from God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When we “see Him as He is” we will be gods. We will always be subordinate in that the Father is the Head and we could not come to Him without the Son and the Holy Spirit (because we could not / did not join the Father without the atonement and …). IMO if we fulfill God’s will for us we will always worship God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; but perfectly united within an indwelling unity of love we will be gods.

It is my opinion that the ontological definition of divinity offered at Nicea where God the Son is God because He is “homoousian” with God the Father makes logical deification difficult. That being said, as a Catholic I would lean toward the view that the God/man Jesus Christ became homoousain with all mankind while continuing to be homoousian with God the Father; therefore, men can retain their humanness and become man/gods via somehow becoming homoousian with God. To the extent that homoousian is defined in a way that make this illogical, then I guess it is. I think there are ways out of this quandary, but that is a question for Catholic theologians. In print I have not seen them accept a full form of deification but instead say, ~”Christ became completely what we are, but we only partially become what He is.”

Anyway, I think that is what I wanted to say for now.
Charity, TOm

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

The vast majority of what you stated above is already standard traditional Trinitarian belief.

As Trinitarians, we believe that there is only one God who exists as three distinct Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In addition, we also refer to the Father as the “one God”. This can be seen in many of our liturgical prayers, as well as in the Nicene Creed itself, which states: "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ…"

Trinitarians do not accept any subordination in divine nature, however we do accept some subordination within the Trinity, and accept that the Father is the “source” or “font”. The Son is begotten, the Holy Spirit proceeds, and the Father neither proceeds nor is begotten.

What exactly is the definition of “homoousios” that you are using to claim that it makes logical deification difficult? What you have said, about Jesus being homoousios with mankind (due to His incarnation) is already standard Trinitarian belief.

Deification in the traditional churches (Catholic and Orthodox) states that we become by grace what God is by nature. We “partake” of the divine nature, which we do not already have. What Mormonism teaches is that we already are of the same nature as God, just not as…“advanced” as He is.

What is your source for the statement-“Christ became completely what we are, but we only partially become what He is.”?

 

[TOmNossor]

CatholicGuyNY,
Thanks for the response. One thing I am hoping you can comment on is whether the LDS view of deification that I advocate is logically coherent. That of course would not mean it is true or Biblical. I believe it is, but while you may be embracing or rejecting those, I hope to hear about the logically coherent claim. I can try to do the same for any view you advocate regarding Catholic deification too. Now to your response.

The vast majority of what you stated above is already standard traditional Trinitarian belief.

As Trinitarians, we believe that there is only one God who exists as three distinct Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In addition, we also refer to the Father as the “one God”. This can be seen in many of our liturgical prayers, as well as in the Nicene Creed itself, which states: "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ…"

Trinitarians do not accept any subordination in divine nature, however we do accept some subordination within the Trinity, and accept that the Father is the “source” or “font”. The Son is begotten, the Holy Spirit proceeds, and the Father neither proceeds nor is begotten.

What does this mean? Obama, Biden, and Pelosi are one species or one government (on some days), Biden and Pelosi are subordinate to Obama in that he is in charge. Is that what you mean? I have yet to believe anyone who fenced adequately what is One concerning Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are not merely of the same species it would seem in the eyes of most Catholic thinkers (Eusebius the historian being an exception I would suggest, and Athanasius and Augustine being part of the rule). How are they the same and yet subordinate? Where does the nature end and the person begin?

As a Social Trinitarian I believe their person-ness is robust. That divinity in part is associated with the communion of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit AND in part is associated with the fount of divinity which is the Father. That this one love, power, glory, expressed will, plan, purpose, … is the unity and the persons are the three-ness.

What exactly is the definition of “homoousios” that you are using to claim that it makes logical deification difficult? What you have said, about Jesus being homoousios with mankind (due to His incarnation) is already standard Trinitarian belief.

Homoousius is of one substance. “Consubstantial” is often used. Is Christ consubstantial with humans. Am I Consubstantial with you.
If you and I are consubstantial how is it that my view of the Social Trinity is regularly condemned as too Tritheistic?
It seems to me that those who view my concept of the Social Trinity as tritheistic because it does not embrace the proper view of homoousian, have created a neo-modalism out of the Trinity. Augustine is accused of this by Catholic and non-Catholic scholars. With this neo-modalism inherent in the definition of homoousian, Christ’s homoousian with us becomes difficult.

Deification in the traditional churches (Catholic and Orthodox) states that we become by grace what God is by nature. We “partake” of the divine nature, which we do not already have.

So are you asserting that a deified Catholic becomes homoousian with God when He “partakes” of the divine nature?

What Mormonism teaches is that we already are of the same nature as God, just not as…“advanced” as He is.

Personally, I would say we are generally ontologically the same species (but that species has nothing to do with divinity as such). We are not part of the communed/perfected-love nature that God has eternally been. Also, it is not a matter of “growing up” to be gods. Instead it is in and through God that we are raised to become gods. It is neither naturally accomplished nor within our power to bring it about.

What is your source for the statement-“Christ became completely what we are, but we only partially become what He is.”?

I can elaborate on this a little in a while, but let me close for now.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

The vast majority of what you stated above is already standard traditional Trinitarian belief.

As Trinitarians, we believe that there is only one God who exists as three distinct Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In addition, we also refer to the Father as the “one God”. This can be seen in many of our liturgical prayers, as well as in the Nicene Creed itself, which states: "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ…"

Trinitarians do not accept any subordination in divine nature, however we do accept some subordination within the Trinity, and accept that the Father is the “source” or “font”. The Son is begotten, the Holy Spirit proceeds, and the Father neither proceeds nor is begotten.

What exactly is the definition of “homoousios” that you are using to claim that it makes logical deification difficult? What you have said, about Jesus being homoousios with mankind (due to His incarnation) is already standard Trinitarian belief.

Deification in the traditional churches (Catholic and Orthodox) states that we become by grace what God is by nature. We “partake” of the divine nature, which we do not already have. What Mormonism teaches is that we already are of the same nature as God, just not as…“advanced” as He is.

What is your source for the statement-“Christ became completely what we are, but we only partially become what He is.”?

I would have to agree with you. It seems like an explanation of deification with all the Mormon parts left out. I was hoping to read an explanation of Mormon deification from the position it is rational; but what I read is something rather orthodox Christian. Perhaps Mormon deification is the same as Christian theosis. I already believe that orthodox Christianity is rational, so I guess I don’t get the point of it all.

 

[TOmNossor]

Hello Stephen168, I was hoping you would get to this thread.

I would have to agree with you. It seems like an explanation of deification with all the Mormon parts left out. I was hoping to read an explanation of Mormon deification from the position it is rational; but what I read is something rather orthodox Christian. Perhaps Mormon deification is the same as Christian theosis. I already believe that orthodox Christianity is rational, so I guess I don’t get the point of it all.

From the above I hope that I can assume a number of things, but please correct me if I have erred in any of the below assumptions.

I wrote what I believe concerning deification. This is a product of my study as a LDS and not what I was taught on the subject when I was Catholic, so it is most definitely the position I claimed was a logical consistent view of how men could become gods. From your statement it seems that you are quite convinced that what I presented was absolutely logical. So let me ask rather directly:
Assumption #1 – Stephen, I think you said that what I wrote concerning deification was in fact a rational logical explanation of how men can become gods; is that correct?

My second assumption born of your quoting of CatholicGuyNY is that you somehow agree/affirm his post as being in alignment with your own thoughts on this issue. Perhaps I go too far in my assumption here because maybe you do not agree with all of his post. But if you do agree with all or most of his post, I would like for you to rather DIRECTLY respond to the questions I pose (to him and now to you) so that I may explore your views. So here is the assumption and question:
Assumption #2 – Stephen you quoted CatholicGuyNY. Do you agree with his post? Can you respond to my questions and responses to him?

My third assumption is that you find what I wrote to be completely orthodox. I actually expect you to back off of this so rather than providing a query in response to this assumption, let me ask you to make your statements EXPLICIT.
Assumption #3 – Stephen you called what I wrote “orthodox.” Does that mean that you agree with everything I wrote? Including my response to CatholicGuyNY? If not please elaborate. If so, I will ask some follow up questions.

Finally, as long as I am making assumptions, I should probably not neglect to respond to what I assume you say with respect to me (after all I am hoping you will respond to me rather than avoid tough questions).
I assume that the more general thrust of your reply was that my response was not Mormon. You seemed to suggest that I created a logically consistent view by avoiding the distinctive Mormon things.
The above view is my paraphrase of the very thorough Exploring Mormon Thought (which I think I recommended to you in the past). It is also a view of deification published (though not outlined explicitly) by BYU’s Maxwell Institute in a book review of Deification and Grace (this book was written by Catholic scholar Daniel Keating). Finally, it is in fact the view I embrace and I am a LDS.
Before I go on in my response to this final assumption, perhaps you might state it as a clear assertion to me rather than a response to another poster. HOWEVER, please deal with the above first. The truth is that is that I compare what I believe as a LDS to what I would need to believe as a Catholic. I am not a Catholic partially because I find more problems with Catholic deification thought than I do with LDS deification thought. I am not likely to be moved much by your assessment of how Mormon or non-Mormon my thought is. Instead, I need to find a good reason to see rationality in Catholic deification thought. So, if you think you are likely to convince me that I cannot hold the views I hold as a LDS, then by all means spend some time here. And to the extent this is a show for others and not about you and me responding to one another; then again devote as much time here as you wish. But please do not neglect the parts of this dialogue that I think are important.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Hello Stephen168, I was hoping you would get to this thread.

From the above I hope that I can assume a number of things, but please correct me if I have erred in any of the below assumptions.

I wrote what I believe concerning deification. This is a product of my study as a LDS and not what I was taught on the subject when I was Catholic, so it is most definitely the position I claimed was a logical consistent view of how men could become gods. From your statement it seems that you are quite convinced that what I presented was absolutely logical. So let me ask rather directly:
Assumption #1 – Stephen, I think you said that what I wrote concerning deification was in fact a rational logical explanation of how men can become gods; is that correct?

I did not find an explanation of Mormon deification, so I could not declare it rational in my mind. You started with the concept of divinity but never really explained what Mormonism meant by it. Then you moved on to the social trinity which is claimed by orthodox Trinitarians, which I know Mormonism is not. Then you told us what deification is not, followed by bible quotes which can be used by Christians to support their understanding of theosis. This does not explain what deification means in Mormonism. You then summarize with some more social trinity language which could be orthodox. You finish with not liking the Nicene definition of divinity.
While searching the web to try to find what Mormonism means by deification, I found that almost all will explain what it isn’t. I could only find one which tried to explain what it was. To judge the rationality of Mormon deification; I think we first have to know what it is.

 

[Stephen168]

I am not likely to be moved much by your assessment of how Mormon or non-Mormon my thought is.

My goal is not to move you. You said you hoped to give a logically consistent view of Mormon deification. I would just like it to be the logic of Mormonism and not the logic of Tom.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

CatholicGuyNY,
Thanks for the response. One thing I am hoping you can comment on is whether the LDS view of deification that I advocate is logically coherent. That of course would not mean it is true or Biblical. I believe it is, but while you may be embracing or rejecting those, I hope to hear about the logically coherent claim. I can try to do the same for any view you advocate regarding Catholic deification too. Now to your response.

I think that I will have to agree with Stephen that I did not really see a lot of distinctively LDS ideas in your explanation. From my reading of LDS theology, I would assume that themes such as pre-mortal existence, being the literal offspring of the Father (and Heavenly Mother), and the necessity of ordinances such as Eternal Marriage and Endowment would be part of that explanation.

What does this mean? Obama, Biden, and Pelosi are one species or one government (on some days), Biden and Pelosi are subordinate to Obama in that he is in charge. Is that what you mean? I have yet to believe anyone who fenced adequately what is One concerning Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are not merely of the same species it would seem in the eyes of most Catholic thinkers (Eusebius the historian being an exception I would suggest, and Athanasius and Augustine being part of the rule). How are they the same and yet subordinate? Where does the nature end and the person begin?

What do you mean by “how are they the same and yet subordinate”? What do you mean by “same”? Frequently, many people will say that “they are the same”, yet not clarify what exactly they mean by “same”. They are not the same Person. They are not physically the same. They are of the same nature, and are so united in will (the Father’s will), purpose, etc. that is beyond anything possible between three humans. We believe that they are inseparable in the sense that you cannot have one Person of the Trinity without having the others. They have all eternally existed (which is really what the issue was at the Council of Nicaea, with the Arians claiming that the Son was a created entity, which reminds me of the LDS belief).

What many LDS (and many Trinitarians themselves) seem to confuse is the Oneness and the Threeness. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not One in the same way that they are Three. We are talking about two different concepts. They are one in nature, purpose, will, mind, etc. They are three in personhood, their roles, etc.

As a Social Trinitarian I believe their person-ness is robust. That divinity in part is associated with the communion of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit AND in part is associated with the fount of divinity which is the Father. That this one love, power, glory, expressed will, plan, purpose, … is the unity and the persons are the three-ness.

See above. This is very similar to the explanations given by traditional Trinitarians. The way that they are One (i.e. those characteristics that make them one) is not the same as the way that they are Three.

Homoousius is of one substance. “Consubstantial” is often used. Is Christ consubstantial with humans. Am I Consubstantial with you.

Yes. Christ is consubstantial with us (due to His incarnation), which adds to our understanding of the Atonement.

If you and I are consubstantial how is it that my view of the Social Trinity is regularly condemned as too Tritheistic?
It seems to me that those who view my concept of the Social Trinity as tritheistic because it does not embrace the proper view of homoousian, have created a neo-modalism out of the Trinity. Augustine is accused of this by Catholic and non-Catholic scholars. With this neo-modalism inherent in the definition of homoousian, Christ’s homoousian with us becomes difficult.

I do not see any “neo-modalism” inherent in the definition of homoousios. What I do see is a modalism inherent in the misunderstanding of what Trinitarians mean by saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are homoousios. I believe that the word was used by modalists anciently, however it was redefined by the Nicene Fathers to not mean that they are the same Person.

For one Catholic’s view on the issue of Social Trinity, see this article:

calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/social-trinitarianism-and-the-catholic-faith/

So are you asserting that a deified Catholic becomes homoousian with God when He “partakes” of the divine nature?

Yes in a sense. However we do not lose our human nature (like Jesus did not lose His divine nature when He incarnated), and we do not become ontologically God.

See this article for some thoughts on the issue, which Catholics (especially Eastern Catholics) would agree with.

orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Personally, I would say we are generally ontologically the same species (but that species has nothing to do with divinity as such). We are not part of the communed/perfected-love nature that God has eternally been. Also, it is not a matter of “growing up” to be gods. Instead it is in and through God that we are raised to become gods. It is neither naturally accomplished nor within our power to bring it about.

Catholics would say that we are not ontologically the same species as God, and that “species” has everything to do with divinity.

When I stated that we progress or grow up to be gods in LDS thought, I did not mean that this is a natural progression in your belief. However it is still a progression or growing up through God and the atonement, from what I understand.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

My goal is not to move you. You said you hoped to give a logically consistent view of Mormon deification. I would just like it to be the logic of Mormonism and not the logic of Tom.

I agree. As I said, the vast majority of what was said in the OP is consistent with orthodox, Catholic theology. We believe in some subordination within the Trinity (with the Father as the head), but not subordination in nature. This is also inherent in our understanding of the filioque, with the acceptable rephrasing of it as the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son. We also believe that “one God” can refer to the Father, as we clearly see in the Nicene Creed, which states that we believe in one God, the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ. It is also through the Atonement that we are deified, and become united with God through Jesus Christ, and that through Jesus’ Incarnation, He became consubstantial with us, effecting the atonement.

 

[TOmNossor]

I did not find an explanation of Mormon deification, so I could not declare it rational in my mind.

Ok, let me see if I can speak more clearly.
Deification is entering into the perfect union of the Social Trinity such that we are part of this perfect loving communion that begins with God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. To be gods is to be part of this indwelling unity. We are invited to this fullness of communion and God desires that we become gods.

You started with the concept of divinity but never really explained what Mormonism meant by it.

Divinity is the state of being a distinct person within the perfect, indwelling, Social, love that is the Social Trinity. Those who are perfectly communed into this Godhead, who are perfectly communed with God the Father, who are perfectly communed with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit; are gods.

Divinity is the communed nature that exists in the Social Trinity. We are called to this nature.

cont …

 

[TOmNossor]

Then you moved on to the social trinity which is claimed by orthodox Trinitarians, which I know Mormonism is not.

LDS are regularly Social Trinitarians. I am a Social Trinitarian. Here is an article by a non-LDS magazine where a BYU scholar explains that he is a Social Trinitarian.
http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=236&var3=main
Here is David Paulsen’s statement of what I said less precisely (in response to a question from MR-Modern Reformation:

**MR: Christian theologians from all the major traditions (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) are united in their belief in monotheism (only one God in this and any other universe, existing beyond time and space). Is LDS theology monotheistic or is it polytheistic?**DP: As indicated above, Latter-day Saints, like other Christians and New Testament writers, affirm that there is a plurality of divine persons. Yet, at the same time, we witness (as our scriptures repeatedly declare) that “the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God.” () Given the plurality of divine persons, how can there be but one God? In at least at least three ways: (1) there is only one perfectly united, mutually indwelling, divine community. We call that community “God” and there is only one such. (2) There is only one God the Father or fount of divinity. () (3) There is only one divine nature or set of properties severally necessary and jointly sufficient for divinity. () In his explanation of the unity of God, LDS Apostle James Talmage, wrote:

“This unity is a type of completeness; the mind of any one member of the Trinity is the mind of the others; seeing as each of them does with the eye of perfection, they see and understand alike. Under any given conditions each would act in the same way, guided by the same principles of unerring justice and equity. The one-ness of the Godhead, to which the scriptures so abundantly testify, implies no mystical union of substance, nor any unnatural and therefore impossible blending of personality. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are as distinct in their persons and individualities as are any three personages in mortality. Yet their unity of purpose and operation is such as to make their edicts one, and their will the will of God.” (7

)

In 1899 James Talmage was asserting many aspects of Social Trinitarianism. LDS theology is the theology of Social Trinitarianism. If Social Trinitarianism is orthodoxy, the CoJCoLDS is orthodox in their Trinitarianism. Some individual LDS may not be as I have met modalist and tritheistic LDS, but my experience is that the majority of philosophically precise discussions of the LDS Godhead are quite well contained within the umbrella of Social Trinitarianism.

Let me ask you another direct question, PLEASE ANSWER.
Are you a Social Trinitarian? If not, how is your view of the Trinity different?

More in a bit.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I found that almost all will explain what it isn’t. I could only find one which tried to explain what it was. To judge the rationality of Mormon deification; I think we first have to know what it is.

I hope I have made some rather pointed statements about what deification IS now. I am interested in your assessment of their logical coherence.

BTW, It is my opinion that Catholicism suffers MIGHTILY from its inability to define what deification is. There is ABSOLUTELY no official Catholic stance on the matter at all. Most Catholics draft off of the Eastern Orthodox descriptions of Theosis (or deification). I think few Catholics realize that Gregory Palamas (EO usually leaned upon for Theosis) and Thomas Aquinas parted ways in their concept of the heavenly state so radically that there is a logically flaw in equating the two.
The best description of Catholic theology of deification is contained within Keatings, Deification and Grace to my recollection he does not deal with the Eastern and Western split, but he does a good job of defining what he believes without just quoting EO scholars. If you adopt his view, I would be happy to explore it with you because while it is not illogical, I think it represents a BREAK with the earliest teachings of the ECFs.
So, could you please define what YOU believe is the Catholic view of deification. What is divinity as such and how do we become divine in your Catholic understanding.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

We are invited to this fullness of communion and God desires that we become gods.

When a Mormon says they will become gods; do they mean like God the Father is God or in some other way?

 

[TOmNossor]

My goal is not to move you. You said you hoped to give a logically consistent view of Mormon deification. I would just like it to be the logic of Mormonism and not the logic of Tom.

As I mentioned before, my views come from Exploring Mormon Thought.****
Volume 1:
http://www.amazon.com/Exploring-Mor...iewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

Volume 2:
http://www.amazon.com/Exploring-Mor...iewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

Volume 3:
http://www.amazon.com/Exploring-Mor...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277416711&sr=8-3

Stephen168, I hope to respond to CatholicGuy who told me that my suggestion that Athanasius, Augustine, (and Aquinas) introduced a “neo-modalism” into Catholic theology. I believe I am correct, but I will let CatholicGuy define what he believes. It sounds like he is a Social Trinitarian. I will deal with that. I assure you that my view of deification is A Mormon view. If it is not the Mormon view you wish to label as irrational, then I cannot do anything about that. If you do not embrace the neo-modalism I label as irrational then I do not think you are accountable for that.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I think that I will have to agree with Stephen that I did not really see a lot of distinctively LDS ideas in your explanation. From my reading of LDS theology, I would assume that themes such as pre-mortal existence, being the literal offspring of the Father (and Heavenly Mother), and the necessity of ordinances such as Eternal Marriage and Endowment would be part of that explanation.

Ok. I am trying to focus on the areas where I perceive the charge of illogic is being leveled. This originally started because to my observation Stephen168 claimed that the LDS idea that “men can become gods” was just irrational. I am coming to find out that his charge has to do with what he thinks LDS mean when they say this rather than having to do with a philosophically precise description of this concept by a LDS. Such is common within inter-religious discussion. We will see if I have fallen victim to it when I assumed that you were a neo-modalist like I believe Augustine, Athanasius, and Aquinas were.
To your assumptions:

1. I fully affirm that men are the offspring of God the Father and existed as His spirit children before they were born on earth. Truth be told, I think a separate issue is that Catholicism lacks a compelling Theodicy and the pre-mortal existence is one of the components that is important to the LDS Theodicy I embrace. But I do not think our pre-mortal existence EXCEPT in its ontological link to God the Father is particularly important for a doctrine of deification.
2. I do not believe the ordinances of Eternal Marriage and the Endowment are part of deification in any metaphysically essential way. In fact since these ordinances will be performed by proxy for those who do not perform them while alive they are not individual necessary at all. The existence of proxy Sealings and Endowments demands IMO that exultation is not predicated upon the act of Sealing or the Endowment. The post mortal acceptance of the proxy ordinances is IMO an assent to God’s will for individuals and couples and the alternative (declining to except God’s will) is antithetical to deification.
3. I would generally say that I accept that there is a Heavenly Mother. At this time, I do not believe she is a member of the Trinity (beyond the membership all mankind are called to partake of) nor do I believe she has an essential role in man’s deification.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

What do you mean by “how are they the same and yet subordinate”? What do you mean by “same”? Frequently, many people will say that “they are the same”, yet not clarify what exactly they mean by “same”. They are not the same Person. They are not physically the same. They are of the same nature, and are so united in will (the Father’s will), purpose, etc. that is beyond anything possible between three humans. We believe that they are inseparable in the sense that you cannot have one Person of the Trinity without having the others. They have all eternally existed (which is really what the issue was at the Council of Nicaea, with the Arians claiming that the Son was a created entity, which reminds me of the LDS belief).

What many LDS (and many Trinitarians themselves) seem to confuse is the Oneness and the Threeness. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not One in the same way that they are Three. We are talking about two different concepts. They are one in nature, purpose, will, mind, etc. They are three in personhood, their roles, etc.

See above. This is very similar to the explanations given by traditional Trinitarians. The way that they are One (i.e. those characteristics that make them one) is not the same as the way that they are Three.

Yes. Christ is consubstantial with us (due to His incarnation), which adds to our understanding of the Atonement.

I do not see any “neo-modalism” inherent in the definition of homoousios. What I do see is a modalism inherent in the misunderstanding of what Trinitarians mean by saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are homoousios. I believe that the word was used by modalists anciently, however it was redefined by the Nicene Fathers to not mean that they are the same Person.

For one Catholic’s view on the issue of Social Trinity, see this article:

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/social-trinitarianism-and-the-catholic-faith/

Yes in a sense. However we do not lose our human nature (like Jesus did not lose His divine nature when He incarnated), and we do not become ontologically God.

See this article for some thoughts on the issue, which Catholics (especially Eastern Catholics) would agree with.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis

CatholicGuyNY,
I appreciate your willingness to respond to my questions. I hope I am responding to yours.

I am not sure what you views are regarding the Trinity quite yet so I may be placing upon you things that I think I have learned from other folks. I would like to ask the below two questions. The first one is rather important because when you say, “What do you mean by “same”? Frequently, many people will say that “they are the same”, yet not clarify what exactly they mean by “same”. They are not the same Person. They are not physically the same.” I may be tilting at a neo-modalism you do not embrace.

I see two things in the above, but I wanted to check them out with you before I plod off unwisely.
First, it seems to me that you are a Social Trinitarian. You embrace the concept of homoousian for the three persons of the Trinity AND homoousian for all of mankind. Christ being the bridge between the two in that He was homoousian with us in His humanity and homoousian with God the Father in His divinity. Do I understand that correctly?

Second, you stated that Jesus Christ had the above two natures, He became human without ceasing to be God AND that we are to have the above two natures in that we are to become divine without ceasing to be human. Do I understand you here correctly?

Charity, TOm

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

I hope I have made some rather pointed statements about what deification IS now. I am interested in your assessment of their logical coherence.

BTW, It is my opinion that Catholicism suffers MIGHTILY from its inability to define what deification is. There is ABSOLUTELY no official Catholic stance on the matter at all. Most Catholics draft off of the Eastern Orthodox descriptions of Theosis (or deification). I think few Catholics realize that Gregory Palamas (EO usually leaned upon for Theosis) and Thomas Aquinas parted ways in their concept of the heavenly state so radically that there is a logically flaw in equating the two.
The best description of Catholic theology of deification is contained within Keatings, Deification and Grace to my recollection he does not deal with the Eastern and Western split, but he does a good job of defining what he believes without just quoting EO scholars. If you adopt his view, I would be happy to explore it with you because while it is not illogical, I think it represents a BREAK with the earliest teachings of the ECFs.
So, could you please define what YOU believe is the Catholic view of deification. What is divinity as such and how do we become divine in your Catholic understanding.
Charity, TOm

You do realize that the Eastern Catholics revere Palamas, hence there is no problem with Catholics relying on his teachings? Also, it is important to remember that these theologians are just that: theologians. They are not Ecumenical Councils, the Magisterium, or Papal Infallibility.

Catholicism quite clearly teaches, right in the Catechism, that we become joint-heirs with Christ, a process that begins with baptism, which makes us a “new creature”, and that the Son of God became man so that we could become gods. Catholicism heavily focuses on sanctification, and the importance of grace in that process (sacramental grace being prime). While Roman Catholics may not talk about “theosis” or “deification” as much as Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Catholics, Roman Catholics still are taught about becoming new creatures in Christ and the sanctification of our very being.

Please read this article from the Catholic Encyclopedia, on Supernatural Adoption, for more information:

newadvent.org/cathen/01148a.htm

 

[TOmNossor]

When a Mormon says they will become gods; do they mean like God the Father is God or in some other way?

Any sophisticated presentation of the concept of deification within Mormonism, including Joseph Smith’s presentation has not included becoming equal to God the Father. God the Father will always be our God.
I follow Ostler and others in suggesting that the Intelligence that was more intelligent than they all (from the Book of Abraham) refers to the supreme God who we call God the Father.
Now those who are deified will possess the intelligence of God, as this is shared within the divine communion; but God the Father’s preeminent possession of this intelligence is still true. This is part of His being the Fount of Divinity.

I have neither problem with nor firm conviction of what “eternal increase” is. At the very least, I think it means that we do not stagnate as a perfected being as I see God presented by much of Aquinas’s thought. We will continue to experience love and communion and any sorrows for/with those who sorrow, but net-net there will be a progression of love and joy. I see no reason that the deified might not receive worlds/kingdoms and Joseph Smith did indeed teach this. I merely suggest as Joseph Smith did that God the Father remains our Father and our God.

I hope that answers your question. I think there are a number of questions I have asked you.
Charity, TOm