Becoming a god

[Brandon_Cal]

Thank you SteveVH and LivingWaters7. I found these responses quite helpful. I guess I’ve just been getting caught up on “sharing in the divine nature”. So is it fair to say that we will be given qualities of God’s divine nature without actually having our own actual, literal natures changed? The way I’ve come to understand it is that Christ’s own taking on a human nature, and subsequent perfect existence and sacrifice with that nature essentially “elevated” or “perfected” human nature, which we can in turn attain through our life with him. We speak of Christ being fully human and fully divine, so if we are to speak of “sharing in his divinity” we can’t understand that to mean that we will literally be imbued with divine nature once we’re in heaven. In other words, can I understand “sharing in divine nature” as just a really poetic way of saying that our human natures will be perfected?

It is the difference between theosis (Christian) and exaltation (Mormon).

The Mormon doctrine of Exaltation claims that man possesses the divine nature independent of it being caused by God. In other words, that man is a self existent being. The Mormon position does hold that God is necessary to perfect man’s divinity, but the source of this divinity is not God, but man himself. They believe that we co-existed with God from eternity, therefore we are not his creatures, but existed independently of him. God is only a man who has progressed further than us. It is like a train. The first car on the train will reach its destination sooner than the caboose, but the caboose will eventually arrive at the same destination, but always behind the first car. The Mormon position goes even further to imagine that we will be given our own worlds over which we will rule, populated by our own spirit children who will in turn worship us as we now worship our God.

Theosis, on the other hand, teaches us that while man lacks divinity by nature, he was, indeed, created for a supernatural end. Christ became man in order to fill us with the divine nature which we otherwise lack. In other words, the divine nature is created in man by the unique and uncaused God (the "God of gods). Humans will attain a real divine nature, by the power of the one God. We will never, however, be this one God but will share in his life as adopted sons and daughters. We will spend eternity in worship of the one, true God, rather than creating worlds in which we ourselves are worshipped.

I think it’s important to realize (as you seem to have) that while both the Catholic and LDS faiths speak of “becoming God/gods” (something that many Catholics in the West, as opposed to the East, are not aware of), and the Early Church Fathers speak extensively on deification, and the terminology and phraseology might be very similar if not the same, there are fundamental differences between the two.

Catholics, and other traditional Christians, believe that there is a chasm between man and God. This could be seen as a “species” difference: God is God, man is man, and we are not of the same nature. Man, body and soul/spirit, is created by God.

In contrast, LDS believe in two different beliefs: all men and women are spirit children of the Father, begotten by Him and Heavenly Mother in the pre-mortal existence. Therefore, we are of the same species or of the same nature as God. since we are his literal spirit children. Secondly, there is an eternal core to all humans, the “intelligence”, that has always existed, was never created. So, while God did beget us as His spiritual offspring, He was essentially putting clothes on a core that always existed.

So, traditional Christians believe that God and man are of two different natures, and that through Jesus Christ, we can partake of the divine nature, a nature that we do not already possess, and become by grace what God is by nature (as the ECFs teach). Mormons believe that we are of the same nature or species as God, and therefore already possess a divine nature, and through Christ, we progress to Godhood. We progress to the same life that the Father lives. So, the subordination between the Father and us in traditional Christianity is one of nature, while in the LDS faith, it’s one of progression.

The LDS view also allows for various other unique teachings and ideas, such as:

-the Father was once a man that progressed to Godhood, and we therefore follow His own example. Traditional Christians believe that God has always been God, and did not have to learn or progress to Godhood.

-because exaltation involves living the same type of life that the Father does, that includes: eternal marriage to your spouse, perhaps having your own worlds (this has been mentioned in official manuals), and having “eternal increase”, spirit children, just like the Father and Heavenly Mother, and that they would have the same relationship to us as we do to the Father. None of these would be entertained in the traditional view. Traditional Christianity seems to be less…elaborate in discussing what exactly deification entails, save for living in the eternal presence of God, becoming by grace what He is by nature, partaking of the divine nature, etc.

 

[Nine_Two]

Yes, but I think the Morman idea is a literal one…that we share God’s essence. This is an alien thought to Christianity. There is a God, and I am his creature.

I agree. The Mormon idea is certainly far from real Christianity.

 

[gazelam]

Meltzer-

Together, they will have intercourse for eternity producing spiritual babies that need bodies to inhabit on their planets.

I’m interested in seeing the LDS quotes you have indicating the manner in which exalted beings procreate (and not just the fact that they do.) Thanks.

 

[gazelam]

Plus Mormons are not Christians, they’re polytheists,
yes do good works, are wonderful people, etc etc etc,
say Jesus and Christ and so forth, but Mormons aren’t
Christian, even if they say they are…

By your own admission Latter-day Saints meet the criteria Jesus gave for identifying His followers…

Matthew 7:16-20 (KJV)

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth devil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them

 

[twopekinguys]

By your own admission Latter-day Saints meet the criteria Jesus gave for identifying His followers…

Matthew 7:16-20 (KJV)

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth devil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them

And you are ignoring what your own “prophet” Gordon Hinckley said.

" Gordon B. Hinckley stated that the Christ he believes in is not the same Christ as the one followed by those outside the LDS Church. "

mormons cannot be called/considered “christian”, because of their view on the Trinity.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

By your own admission Latter-day Saints meet the criteria Jesus gave for identifying His followers…

Matthew 7:16-20 (KJV)

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth devil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them

This is a good example of Mormon proof-texting. WHOM shall we know by their fruits? The answer is in verse 15 which you didn’t include: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” What sorts of fruits did Joseph Smith bring forth?

 

[SteveVH]

Thank you SteveVH and LivingWaters7. I found these responses quite helpful. I guess I’ve just been getting caught up on “sharing in the divine nature”. So is it fair to say that we will be given qualities of God’s divine nature without actually having our own actual, literal natures changed?

Actually no. We are given a true divine nature by virtue of our real union with God, not just divine attributes. The difference lies in the fact that this divine nature is not a part of our human nature. I think this is where many Catholics and Mormons start speaking past one another. We believe that there is only one divine, eternal Being. All else, including humans, are God’s creation. God’s eternal nature is divine, our created nature is human. We are given divine life as a gift; it is not a part of us naturally. Christ, being fully divine, restored the union between God and man by becoming both God and man. Those who are in Christ have received the gift of divine life as the Holy Spirit dwells in us

The Mormon position, on the other hand, makes no distinction between the nature of God and man, believing that we possess the same nature, the only difference being the level to which one has progressed. The doctrine of pre-mortal existence promotes the idea that we are self-existent beings, co-eternal with God, and therefore not a creation of God, but rather existing apart from him. As we extend this theory one then believes that divinity is part of his natural state and only needs to be perfected through the assistance of God; the process of exaltation.

So the two positions are very much opposed on several levels and it is a very important distinction that seems to affect one’s view of both theology and anthropology and extends into all facets of one’s beliefs, including the purpose and nature of salvation itself.

The way I’ve come to understand it is that Christ’s own taking on a human nature, and subsequent perfect existence and sacrifice with that nature essentially “elevated” or “perfected” human nature, which we can in turn attain through our life with him.

The incarnation gave unprecedented dignity to the human race. God had become one of us; the perfect man. In order to serve Justice, man had to pay for the sins of man, yet no man was righteous enough to pay the price as we were all sinners. Jesus became man in order to pay the price for man. God provided himself as the sacrificial Lamb.

I just want to be very clear here that you understand that our salvation is not based upon us becoming knowledgeable, experienced and good people working toward perfection, but that our salvation is a gratuitous act of love from our amazing God. This is Love beyond all telling.

We speak of Christ being fully human and fully divine, so if we are to speak of “sharing in his divinity” we can’t understand that to mean that we will literally be imbued with divine nature once we’re in heaven. In other words, can I understand “sharing in divine nature” as just a really poetic way of saying that our human natures will be perfected?

In a sense, we will become who we were created to be, so in that respect we will be perfected, yes. But we will really have a divine nature, a gift from God. We will have glorified bodies, just as Christ has and our intellect and will, will be in perfect conformity to God’s. We will be adopted sons and daughters of God and share in the very life of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as co-heirs with Christ. It will be a union that we have no capability of even grasping in our mortal state. Scripture describes it as a wedding feast between Christ and the Church (his Bride), indicating an amazing intimacy with God.

BUT, we will not be God. We will always be the created and God will always be the Creator. We will always be human beings, but glorified human beings, transformed forever by the grace of God.

 

[gazelam]

Yes, but I think the Mormon idea is a literal one…that we share God’s essence. This is an alien thought to Christianity. There is a God, and I am his creature.

The Mormon idea is a literal one, and it’s straight from the Bible. There is a God and I am His offspring.

Acts 17:29 (KJV) Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God…

Romans 8:16, 17 (KJV)

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

 

[gazelam]

Is it true that Roman Catholics are working towards becoming a god, like the Mormons do?

CCC 460, The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

Just for good measure I’ll throw in some ECF quotes in bold, followed by references.

Irenaeus - We have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods.

Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses (Irenaeus Against Heresies), book 4, chapter 38, in The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, vol. 1 of Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 522.

Irenaeus - Passing beyond the angels, and be made after the image and likeness of God.

Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses (Irenaeus Against Heresies), book 5, chapter 36, in vol. 1, The Apostolic Fathers, 567.

Clement of Alexandria - Being destined to sit on thrones with the other gods that have been first put in their places by the Saviour.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata (Miscellanies), book 7, chapter 10, in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), vol. 2 of Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 539.

Clement of Alexandria - Knowing God, he will be made like God. . . . And that man becomes God, since God so wills.

Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus (The Instructor), book 3, chapter 1, in vol. 2, Fathers of the Second Century, 271;

Hippolytus - And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ. . . . For thou hast become God: . . . thou hast been deified, and begotten unto immortality.

Hippolytus, Philosophumena (The Refutation of All Heresies), book 10, chapter 30, in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix, vol. 5 of Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 153

Cyprian - What Christ is, we Christians shall be, if we imitate Christ.

Cyprian, “On the Vanity of Idols,” The Treatises of Cyprian, 6:15, in vol. 5, Fathers of the Third Century, 469.

Origen - The true God [referring to the Father], then, is ‘The God,’ and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype.

Origen, Commentary on John, 2:2, in The Gospel of Peter, the Diatessaron of Tatian, vol. 9 of Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 323.

St. Athanasius of Alexandria - [God] was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods.

Athanasius, Orationes Contra Arianus (Four Discourses Against the Arians), 1.39, 3.34, in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, vol. 4 of A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1978–79), 329, 413

 

[gazelam]

This is a good example of Mormon proof-texting. WHOM shall we know by their fruits? The answer is in verse 15 which you didn’t include: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” What sorts of fruits did Joseph Smith bring forth?

A tree with corrupt roots does not produce the good fruit Judas Thaddeus was referring to.

 

[gazelam]

And you are ignoring what your own “prophet” Gordon Hinckley said.

" Gordon B. Hinckley stated that the Christ he believes in is not the same Christ as the one followed by those outside the LDS Church. "

mormons cannot be called/considered “christian”, because of their view on the Trinity.

While we disagree on some aspects of the nature of Christ we both agree to do His good works, and that without His atonement we cannot return clean to the presence of Our Heavenly Father.

 

[Novocastrian]

While we disagree on some aspects of the nature of Christ we both agree to do His good works, and that without His atonement we cannot return clean to the presence of Our Heavenly Father.

The value of the atonement is intimately linked to Christ’s nature. The Impassable one was in the body suffering. That’s integral to the Gospel, and Cyril got it right.

 

[Stephen168]

Just for good measure I’ll throw in some ECF quotes in bold, followed by references.

Irenaeus - We have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods.

Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses (Irenaeus Against Heresies), book 4, chapter 38, in The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, vol. 1 of Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 522.

Irenaeus - Passing beyond the angels, and be made after the image and likeness of God.

Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses (Irenaeus Against Heresies), book 5, chapter 36, in vol. 1, The Apostolic Fathers, 567.

Clement of Alexandria - Being destined to sit on thrones with the other gods that have been first put in their places by the Saviour.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata (Miscellanies), book 7, chapter 10, in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), vol. 2 of Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 539.

Clement of Alexandria - Knowing God, he will be made like God. . . . And that man becomes God, since God so wills.

Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus (The Instructor), book 3, chapter 1, in vol. 2, Fathers of the Second Century, 271;

Hippolytus - And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ. . . . For thou hast become God: . . . thou hast been deified, and begotten unto immortality.

Hippolytus, Philosophumena (The Refutation of All Heresies), book 10, chapter 30, in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix, vol. 5 of Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 153

Cyprian - What Christ is, we Christians shall be, if we imitate Christ.

Cyprian, “On the Vanity of Idols,” The Treatises of Cyprian, 6:15, in vol. 5, Fathers of the Third Century, 469.

Origen - The true God [referring to the Father], then, is ‘The God,’ and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype.

Origen, Commentary on John, 2:2, in The Gospel of Peter, the Diatessaron of Tatian, vol. 9 of Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 323.

St. Athanasius of Alexandria - [God] was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods.

Athanasius, Orationes Contra Arianus (Four Discourses Against the Arians), 1.39, 3.34, in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, vol. 4 of A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1978–79), 329, 413

Mormon teaching is contrary to the ECF. See post #28.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Mormon teaching is contrary to the ECF. See post #28.

What is really interesting is to actually understand the theological contexts that these quotes (which seem to be taken from the talk Our Identity and Our Destiny by Elder Tad R Callister of the Presidency of the Seventy) from Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Origen, Athanasius, etc come from, and the continuity they have with the Catholic and Orthodox teachings on the matter, and not the LDS context.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

By your own admission Latter-day Saints meet the criteria Jesus gave for identifying His followers…
Matthew 7:16-20 (KJV)
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth devil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them

You have a long way to go, because Mormonism doesn’t fulfill the more crucial tenants of Christianity. In Christianity, Christ is God. In Mormonism, Christ is not, but a created finite being as is the Father and his father before him and so forth. Mormons are NOT Christian. Christians believe in only One God, Mormonism teaches an infinite number of gods, not Christian. There are so many other issues with Mormonism, Good Works means nothing when there are false prophets and doctrines and gods.

I will recommend
you to this video**:**
youtube.com/watch?v=oikTK7z5-kQ

 

[twopekinguys]

While we disagree on some aspects of the nature of Christ we both agree to do His good works, and that without His atonement we cannot return clean to the presence of Our Heavenly Father.

But, the difference is key to it all. If we do not totally agree on the nature of Christ, then we are not worshiping the same Christ.

Even Hinckley understood that. That is why he said we don’t worship the same one. Therefore, mormons are not Christian, no matter how much they want to identify that way.

You can call a pig a cow all you want. In the end, it is still a pig.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

But, the difference is key to it all. If we do not totally agree on the nature of Christ, then we are not worshiping the same Christ.
Even Hinckley understood that. That is why he said we don’t worship the same one. Therefore, mormons are not Christian, no matter how much they want to identify that way.
You can call a pig a cow all you want. In the end, it is still a pig.

I like Jason Wallace’s parallel with the duck and the chicken then the platypus!

youtube.com/watch?v=BnKVnwv9OFI

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m interested in seeing the LDS quotes you have indicating the manner in which exalted beings procreate (and not just the fact that they do.) Thanks.

Sure thing.

Mormonism denies that Christ was begotten by the Holy Spirit in His incarnation, teaching instead that God the Father sex with Mary, (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 547.) “instead letting any other man do it” (Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses, 4:218).

Now, if God the Father has the equipment with which to have physical sex with Mary who was fully human, then it stands to reason that His Celestial wife will have her plumbing, also.

So, where do YOU think all those celestial babies come from?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Sure thing.

Mormonism denies that Christ was begotten by the Holy Spirit in His incarnation, teaching instead that God the Father sex with Mary, (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 547.) “instead letting any other man do it” (Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses, 4:218).

Now, if God the Father has the equipment with which to have physical sex with Mary who was fully human, then it stands to reason that His Celestial wife will have her plumbing, also.

So, where do YOU think all those celestial babies come from?

Allow me to support this claim with the sayings of Orson Pratt:

"The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus,
according to the flesh, must have been associated in the capacity of husband and wife; hence the Virgin Mary
must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful wife, because it
would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully…
He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary IN THE CAPACITY OF A HUSBAND, and beget a Son…

Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time and etern-
ity, we are not informed. It may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph
while in this mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take
her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity."
Apostle Orson Pratt, “The Seer,” Oct. 1853, p. 158).

 

[SteveVH]

Allow me to support this claim with the sayings of Orson Pratt:

"The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus,
according to the flesh, must have been associated in the capacity of husband and wife; hence the Virgin Mary
must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful wife, because it
would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully…
He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary IN THE CAPACITY OF A HUSBAND, and beget a Son…

Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time and etern-
ity, we are not informed. It may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph
while in this mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take
her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity."
Apostle Orson Pratt, “The Seer,” Oct. 1853, p. 158).

I’m sorry, that is just creepy.