Augustine shy? I hope you realize how silly that statement is. Augustine was a tireless defender of orthodoxy against such heretic as the Manichaeans, Donatists, Pelagians, Arians, and others. If Augustine wanted to move the Church away from the LDS definition of deification he would have simply denounced the idea and moved on. He is not being “cagey” but fully defining the orthodox Tradition that was faithfully handed down by the Church from the Apostles.
Augustine is not trying to denounce deification altogether because he knows that is a recognized and accepted doctrine of the Church. But at the same time he tries to find a way of getting round its implications as it was taught by the ECFs.
For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.19.2
This agrees with LDS doctrine. What he is saying is that deification does not mean that we supplant the supreme God. He still remains God above all. That is correct and in agreement with LDS doctrine.
Can anyone tell me who and where this “supreme God” is? According to Mormon theology it certainly isn’t the Father:
The answer to your question seems obvious to me. They used the word 'gods" because we become deified or immortal. But, they are clear to point out that we become deified IN Christ. Nowhere do we find the concept of a natural progression to Godhood through the accumulation of knowledge. Nowhere do we find the concept that we are by nature embryonic Gods and all we need to do is “grow”. What they consistently say is that we are supernaturally changed from one type of creation to a different type. We don’t progress or mature as LDS doctrine suggests.
Todd, a few years ago I was in a discussion with a young LDS man and another analogy came to mind that I’d like to pass by you:
I call that nitpicking. The “supreme God” is whoever Irenaeus considers to be the “supreme God”. We are discussing the subject in the context in which he is understanding and discussing it.
According to Mormon theology, the Father certainly is the “supreme God”.
The word “god” means a lot more than immortal. Angels are immortal. Even the devil is immortal. But they are not gods.
Neither do we.
LDS doctrine suggests no such thing.
LDS doctrine suggests no such thing. If that was the case, then everybody would become a god. As it happens, they don’t. Some become devils, some become angels, and some become gods.
That is dishonest. You know perfectly well that that is not true LDS doctrine. I had given you the scriptural references which precisely define LDS doctrine of deification. If you choose to ignore them we have nothing further to discuss.
Neither do I! I love it more than you do! You have no problem with it because you have no choice. It stares you in the face in black and white, and you can’t get away from with. I love it because it is an affirmation to me that modern Christianity is an apostate institution, and that the LDS Church is a restoration of the original gospel.
It appears that you want me to find a contradiction between my beliefs as a Catholic and the ECF’s on the subject of deification. There simply is none. I can read what they wrote and feel no disconnect between my beliefs and their beliefs. If modern LDS theology agrees with the ECF’s on the topic(past LDS theology does not and most LDS I know don’t believe as you do), then I’m very pleased that the LDS church is moving toward orthodoxy. Perhaps it won’t be long until we can recognize LDS as true Christians.
The LDS Church is not “moving” anywhere. The standard works have been around since its inception. If it is “moving” at all, it is moving in the direction of reaffirming its own foundational divine revelatory heritage.
Nor is this thread. Using amgid’s methodology for determining the faith of an early church we must admit that the LDS church’s true faith was that the Father was once a mortal man like we are. However, amgid refuses to look at the founders of his faith for the proper understanding of theological issues, even discounting plainly expressed views from Joseph Smith himself.
Amgid, I just want to be clear that I’m not trying be provocative when I say LDS believe a certain doctrine. When I say that, I’m not making a statement about your beliefs specifically or about LDS doctrine specifically. Rather, it’s a statement based on my observations and conversations with the many LDS I associate with on a daily basis.
Not so. The standard works have always been the standard of Church theology and doctrine. The following quote is from one of the earliest revelations received by Joseph Smith, addressed to Oliver Cowdery, who had acted as scribe to him in writing the Book of Mormon, as well as some of the revelations that he had received; and later became the “second elder of the Church” after Joseph Smith (effectively second in command), and responsible with him in building the Church and kingdom of God on earth:
It is rare for Joseph Smith to speak speculatively on doctrine. the King Follett discourse is an exception. And Joseph Smith is no more exempt from that rule that we have mentioned than anyone else is.
So having tried every other trick and failed, you are now going to try denouncing the ECFs’ teachings on deification as speculation! Is that the last trick left in your bag, or do you still have some more?
Not sure what you are driving at with this one.
See above.
You need to read my clarifying post immediately following that post. I am not trying to distance myself from what Clement wrote, but to illustrate a bit of a double standard. I have no issues with the quote you gave from Clement because it has been understood throughout the history of the Church very differently than how you interpret it (Augustine in the 5th century, Athanasius in the 4th, Aquinas in the 13th, even JP2 in the 20th). My biggest beef is that when Smith or Young teach something as doctrine it can later be tossed asside as speculation even when the doctrines were believed and practiced and taught for decades. However, you take a passage that has been consistently interpreted one way in the Catholic faith, force your own LDS interpretation and require us to believe that it is the one and only peculiar LDS doctrine that survived the great apostacy. If Clement “clearly” taught the LDS doctrine of eternal progression why was there no schismatic group of holdouts protesting what Athanasius wrote only a little over 100 years later?
I didn’t say that you were.
I agree that many LDS “popular” beliefs are not accurate representations of true LDS doctrine.
And I am equally interested in establishing the LDS scriptural doctrine, which is what the leadership of the Church have counseled Church members to focus their attention on.
I am disappointed. I had hoped that you would surprise me with some new innovative trick this time, but you didn’t.