Mormon Exaltation in Light of Theosis

[Stephen168]

I put no faith in Ostler. It is true that he is a Mormon, and he does argue for his positions. But those positions are the vague, self-contradictory, and constantly shifting positions common in Mormon “doctrine”.)

David Paulsen writes in the forward to the book by Olsten, to which we have been referred. Paulson wrote,
*"… Blake begins to formulate **for the first time ever ***a systematic Mormon Christology,"
This is a strange thing to say, considering that in the very book for which Paulsen wrote the Forward, Blake himself wrote:
"There is no authoritative systematic development of Mormon beliefs. There is no final, once and for all, statement of the truth."

No “once and for all statement of the truth”? That is obviously at odds with Jesus, Peter, and Aquinas, who knew there are absolutes. Mormonism is a religion of relativisms, and this relativism is an obstacle to Mormons when one tries to teach them about Theological absolutes. As McMurrin observed,

• “The Mormon theologians have moved somewhat **ambiguously ***between the emotionally satisfying absolutism of traditional theism and the radical finitism logically demanded by their denial of creation and encouraged by the pragmatic character of their daily faith. [Their failure to appreciate their own position is due in part] from their own brand of scholasticism and their often intense legalism.”

Furthermore, Paulsen’s claim that Blake “for the first time ever” begins to set up a systematic Mormon Christology is false. Who forgets history will repeat it, and who forgets the advancement of religious philosophy will repeat that effort to, though perhaps less successfully than former generations. Sterling McMurrin, a Philosopher, Professor of Christian Theology and Christian Ethics, and a Mormon, wrote,
“… the Mormon writers of earlier generations enjoyed a more profound grasp of philosophical issues and exhibited greater intellectual acumen in their attempts upon those issues than do their present successors.” (The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion)

In a 1993 taped interview, McMurrin made some remarks that I believe are pertinent:

“As a matter of fact I am doing some essays on the philosophy of Mormonism and in the preface I have made the point that today it is very difficult to determine what is the official doctrine of the Mormon church. I think it is very difficult. Back when I was learning things about Mormonism, when James E. Talmage and B. H. Roberts and Orsen Whitney–(Here are people of great intellectual strengths and Talmage and Roberts died in 1933 as you will know.) – It was when I was a college student.** Back in those days you could tell what the Mormon church believed and what it didn’t believe. But it wasn’t every Tom, Dick and Harry in the general authorities who were turning out books. And now a days, everyone is turning out these books and people think that, of course, they know what they are talking about, and so you have a hard time.** I mean you have a hard time comparing some of Neal Maxwell’s writings with B. H. Roberts. A few years ago, Daniel Rector … said, “You know, you are a Talmage / Roberts / Widstoe Mormon. The church doesn’t believe these things any more. They don’t go in for that kind of theology anymore.” And I thought. What is this kid trying to tell me. He said, “You have lost touch with reality.” So I got around and got in touch with reality and discovered he was absolutely right. He was absolutely right. Those men have been forgotten. And we now … I haven’t read many of these things lately, so I could be corrected. What the philosophers call as corrigible. Not incorrigible. My stuff is corrigible. But my impression now is that** it would be very difficult to just take the things that are being put out now and determine just what it is that the beliefs of the Mormon church are now**.”

From what you explained, it seems the reason a Mormon cannot answer my question is because there is no Mormon answer.

 

[TOmNossor]

If God is not static, seemingly ever moving towards eternal perfection, who’s to say such a state will be denied to those God begets with his spiritual wife? If at any point man can be as perfect as God once was in Mormon theology then it seems that we have for all intention purposes become equal with God since at any given point you will have the power and ability of God which is seemingly limitless (after all what can’t God do now that he can do fifty years from now?). You might say respect is still owed to God and that respect and honour is necessary, but it seems like it’s only the respect owed by one like a Son or Daughter, but they have become everything their Father and Mother are in essence.

As far as seeming, while it may be possible that those who taught God was a physical being were in the majority, the lack of resources in this area does not automatically make it as plausible as the traditional Christian view being the majority. In the absence of such records, in the absence of a sophisticated defence for God being material I am able to think that such a view was the minority. Do we have any references to articulated defences of works detailing an argument for God being a material being? If what you say is true I am sure there would have been sophisticated and intelligent materialists able to defend such a position, but I am unaware of such works and it’s not as if we don’t know about works contrary to the Christian faith through the patristics who make reference to works which attacked the faith or were thought heretical. Origen might have accused Melito of believing God material but I don’t think Melito ever made a theological treatise in defence of that position.

That being said, even if there were such people in the church that doesn’t go on to prove that the position is correct or apostolic. We know there were plenty of spiritualists, people who rejected the material completely and believed Jesus to be pure spirit and thus would subsequently free us of material bonds. They were far louder and numerous (given the response of the fathers) yet none of us believe they reflected the apostolic tradition, even though they were the loudest heretics. Rather my belief in the traditional doctrine is in this, that the church reflecting over the centuries never abandoned that theosis language with regards to the spirit and the body, despite later definitions of God being utterly immaterial and unapproachable. This is significant because of the complete lack of Gnostics doing so and as far as I can see the total inexistence of such a position on the materialists(those who believed God to be flesh). We see the tradition in Christianity not abandoning its apostolic origin and the language of the fathers before it, but fully embracing it and clarifying it so that others might understand. This is only natural and if there was a lack of revelation necessary to correct such errors, God should have provided prophets, which he did not apparently.
As for expecting Saint Monica, most likely not educated in theology but rather having a simple and pious faith to educate her son on these matters, I don’t think that’s reasonable.

As far as creation ex nihilo being originally gnostic. …

I have claimed that God is the “self-surpassing-surpasser of all” and that this is from the beginning and will be true forever more. If this means that when God calls us to be self-surpassing for an eternity of progression toward Him, we are equal to Him, I can see how one might make such a case. I will add that I personally believe that it will always be true that in our initial state we required God to lift us up and this was something God never needed.

I have read a few scholarly treatments in response to Gerard May’s book Creatio Ex Nihilo, but I have yet to think they damaged May’s premises through any historical evidence or interpretations (they offered historic texts as if May had not already discussed them thus for the reader of May their position appeared to be “slight of hand” rather than a response). May is not a philosopher and his book does not deal with philosophy. I think Blake Ostler has adequately dealt with the philosophical challenges. Anyway, it is May who points to Basilides a gnostic as the first person who claimed creation was ex nihilo. It should be noted that May does not suggest that “orthodox” Christians drafted off this gnostic but instead that they philosophically inferred this doctrine. The soundness of this inference is debatable (though not for May he is a fan), but May does not suggest it came via revelation. One might say it was a DEVELOPMENT from already accepted truths without too much problem. St. Justin Martyr would be the clearest rejecter of Creation ex Nihilo in the early church.

Concerning the idea that God the Father like God the Son possesses a body of flesh and bone, it would seem from your comments you believe it most likely that very educated Christians from the apostles to today reject it, but that quite naturally more simple Christians (like St. Monica) believed it without considering the alternative. Origin’s witness does not allow for this to be the totality of the explanation as Origin points to educated folks who considered the question and sided with an embodied God. I do not agree that we should see these educated folks defense. Much of the rejected was just that rejected and not preserved EXCEPT in the form responded to by the anti-xyz response (See Against Heresies for many things that are refuted but not defended in different texts). That being said, Irenaeus who predated Origin appears to agree with Origin’s position so if there is a “dividing line” it is at least somewhat blurry (as one would expect). If you have not read Paulsen’s essay, I think it is very good (and so did HTR).
I hope I responded to most of what you said. Thank you for your post.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I really try to not just pull stuff out of thin air. Both print and media that were popular with American Catholics are available online, going back to the early 19th century. There are numerous discussions on partaking of the divine nature, which include the teaching that we do not change into the essence of the divine nature, we partake of it. Ccc460 does not remove this long held, unchanging doctrine. There is one God.

You have a funny definition for what constitutes change. The Catholic Church does not change doctrines but certainly the world changes and there must always be a contemplation on what it means to be a Christian in the time in which we live, including the meaning of the Sacraments in relationship to our lives, here and now. Artificial birth control was not addressed until it existed. It is not a change in doctrine for the Churxh to expound on how birth control does not align to a Christian life. It is not a change to a Sacrament, to align it to a modern world where danger of death, has a different meaning than 100 years ago.

What I said that you disagreed with originally was:

The prevalence of CCC#460 as part of the consciousness of numerous Catholics is a change from when I was a Catholic before the modern CCC was written. The Baltimore Cathecism (a document as synonymous to the CCC as any available in English, but still much less important than the current CCC) has nothing like CCC#460. While I would say the teaching in CCC#460 have been present within the Catholic Church throughout history, they were so deemphasized that most Catholics through most of the 20th century and for many centuries before would scream “blasphemy” at the words of CCC#460. You might say this is just a change in emphasis or knowledge, but not a change in doctrine.

Now you come back with some assurance that “partaking of the divine nature” has been part of popular Catholic culture long before CCC460. And an assurance that that modern CCC didn’t change Catholic doctrine to be Mormon doctrine.
If “partakers of the divine nature” could have only one meaning then intelligent LDS and intelligent Catholics would not disagree as to what it means. So that popular Catholic Culture included this New Testament phrase without every mentioning Psalm 82 in the way Irenaeus mentioned Psalm 82 is in complete alignment with my claims.
I said that “most Catholics through most of the 20th century and for many centuries before would scream “blasphemy” at the words of CCC#460.” I stand by this assessment. Show me popular Catholic media that used the term “gods” to describe those who “partake of the divine nature.” I would not be surprised if you find ZERO examples of this use of the word, “gods,” but I doubt you will convince me that term “gods” was part of popular Catholic culture when referring to those who receive the adoption.
Finally, in my original post as I quoted above I think I made it clear that one could say it is “a change in emphasis or knowledge, but not a change in doctrine.” Catholic scholars who can and did read Latin and Greek have regularly referenced deification doctrines throughout history (though many of them shy from the word “gods” as it is used in CCC).

When I say that Catholicism CHANGED a dogma and is internally inconsistent such that it CANNOT be God’s church (if Catholicism cannot CHANGE radically a doctrine that is), I try to spell out exactly what I mean. I have done this in the past (and fortunately no Catholic agreed with me), but I was just saying something more obvious, less technical, and MUCH less threatening. The language (“gods”) of CCC460 is absent in Catholicism during most of the 19th century and many centuries before.

And no, I do not believe that the most consistent and learned position within Catholicism in 1805 and the most consistent and learned position within Catholicism in 2015 concerning the deification of man has changed. I do not believe Catholicism holds to the view of St. Irenaeus however, but I expect you and I have been over that ground elsewhere.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor;13596583:

Rebecca,
That you can see in my love for my son an aspiration for self-deification of myself, makes me sad. I wonder if you forgot I was a member of THAT church if you would see the same thing?

I am too tired to reproduce these words in a way that you would again cry “self-deification.” I want to believe that God loves me as much as He loves the Virgin Mary so here are the words of Fulton Sheen:

Just suppose that you could have pre-existed your own mother, in much the same way that an artist pre-exists his painting. Furthermore, suppose that you had the infinite power to make your mother anything that you pleased, just as a great artist like Raphael has the power of realizing his artistic ideas. Suppose you had this double power, what kind of mother would you have made for yourself?
Would you have made her of such a type that would make you blush because of her unwomanly and un-mother-like actions? Would you have made her exteriorly and interiorly of such a character as to make you ashamed of her? Or would you have made her, so far as human beauty goes; the most beautiful woman in the world; and so far as beauty of the soul goes, one who would radiate every virtue, every manner of kindness and charity and loveliness; one who by the purity of her life and her mind and her heart would be an inspiration not only to you but even to your fellow men, so that all would look up to her as the very incarnation of what is best in motherhood?”
Now if you who are an imperfect being and who have not the most delicate conception of all that is fine in life would have wished for the loveliest of mothers, do you think that our Blessed Lord, who not only pre-existed His own mother but who had an infinite power to make her just what He chose, would in virtue of all the infinite delicacy of His spirit make her any less pure and loving and beautiful than you would have made your own mother? If you who hate selfishness would have made her selfless and you who hate ugliness would have made her beautiful, do you not think that the Son of God, who hates sin, would have made His own mother sinless and He who hates moral ugliness would have made her immaculately beautiful?

I who believe the Theotokos was a choice spirit who pre-existed her incarnation, do not cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods (or immaculately conceived) from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods. Utilizing the same thought process that Fulton Sheen did, I say that if I can love my son enough to want the best for him and utilize my finite power to lift him up, surly God who is omnibenevolent and omnipotent will do all he can to deify individuals who cooperate with Him (and not because cooperation is earning a reward, but because God will not force us against our will).

And again, that you can see in my love for my son an aspiration for self-deification of myself, makes me sad.
Charity, TOm
Oh come now, you know very well that this is how Mormonism teaches about you becoming a god. You don’t need to pretend with me.

Rebecca,
I have no idea what you mean when you say, “you know very well that this is how Mormonism teaches about you become a god.”
Do you mean that Mormonism owns the idea that we are self-deifiers? This is ridiculous and untrue.
Do you mean that Mormonism teaches that we are to desire deification for self-aggrandizement? This is ridiculous and untrue.
Do you mean that I personally am lying when I claim that when I hold to the doctrine of deification it is about attributing to God the good-making properties He is due? This is also untrue, and I am the world authority on what I believe.

I really do not know what you mean.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

It is very clear that TomNossor has shifted to one of his favorite logical fallacies; the false dilemma. It is also a classic Mormon fallacy as well. It is either Catholicism or Mormonism. He comes to Catholic Answers Forum making claims that a belief is not Catholic with hidden meaning that it must be Mormon. This is done to avoid having to give an honest explanation of Mormon belief.

It is clear that Mormon teaching is not ancient Christian teaching. Post #32 takes us to an article by Mormon David L. Paulsen who describes Mormon teaching just as I did in post #25.

I pointed out the difference in post #54 to show how Catholic teaching differs from Mormon teaching as compared to ancient Christian teaching. Catholic and ancient are the same and nothing like Mormonism.

While Tom is the world authority on what he believes it has nothing to do with what the Mormon Church teaches about deification.

What Tom is claiming to be Mormon teaching would be a movement toward Catholic and therefore, ancient Christian belief. But he has avoiding proving that the Mormon Church actually has moved to the new belief.

Now Post #58 does suggest that Mormons can now believe a variety of things within limits. But not being required to believe the teachings of Joseph Smith would still be a move toward Catholicism.

And all Mormons have failed to fully answer the OP.

 

[KathleenGee]

Tom,

The Council of Trent corrected abuses. It also systematically compiled the Catechism of Trent. The Catechism we use today is the Council of Trent, but more written concerning each doctrine.

Likewise, every doctrine of faith in the Catechism shows footnotes that provide the source, most from Sacred Scripture.

I remember reading in our local Catholic newspaper of a young woman who was searching for authentic Christianity, and she grew up in an anti Catholic Protestant home. She read early Christian teachings. And then when she acquired a modern Catholic catechism, she found the same teachings and became Catholic.

 

[TOmNossor]

It is very clear that TomNossor has shifted to one of his favorite logical fallacies; the false dilemma. It is also a classic Mormon fallacy as well. It is either Catholicism or Mormonism. He comes to Catholic Answers Forum making claims that a belief is not Catholic with hidden meaning that it must be Mormon. This is done to avoid having to give an honest explanation of Mormon belief.

Stephen,
I don’t usually respond to you, but since you are not really responding to me perhaps I will.
You should read the OP. It was absolutely responded to. What quotes from the ECF are used? The quotes I provided! Done!

Of course the author of the OP entered into this conversation knowing his answer and prepared to claim that the ECF do not support the view of deification that he thinks LDS embrace. So after the quote we proceeded down this well warn path.

Now, are you calling me a liar? Are you saying that I do not believe what I claim to believe and/or Ostler does not believe what he claims to believe? I suspect not.

Instead, it is you who cannot deal with what real LDS believe and can only address the specific set of beliefs you feel you can address. This is fine, but it does not mean that the OP was not addressed.

It is clear that Mormon teaching is not ancient Christian teaching. Post #32 takes us to an article by Mormon David L. Paulsen who describes Mormon teaching just as I did in post #25.

I pointed out the difference in post #54 to show how Catholic teaching differs from Mormon teaching as compared to ancient Christian teaching. Catholic and ancient are the same and nothing like Mormonism.

Stephen you do not know what you are talking about.
All, Stephen does not understand Paulsen’s article this is absolutely true. I maintain he doesn’t know Mormonism, and his ERRORS concerning Paulsen’s article SHOULD allow everyone to recognize that Stephen is no authority on LDS beliefs.

Stephen, one of the folks who assisted in writing the “deification” section of Paulsen’s article believes exactly the same thing I believe about EVERY single thing in the entire universe including deification. In case you don’t get it, it was me.

That deification section includes:

1. The need for a redeemer to elevate us to God so that we can become gods:

Thus, through the sanctifying influence of the Holy Ghost, Christ’s atonement makes it possible for man to transcend his fallen state and become a partaker of the divine nature.

1. A large component of deification is the entering into the relationship of God and uniting with God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit):

Finally, Joseph realized that an essential property of divinity is a relationship of sacred and intimate unity with the persons of the Godhead. As Joseph stated in an 1833 revelation:

{Christ} received a fulness of the glory of the Father; and he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him, and it shall come to pass that if you are faithful . . . you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace (D&C 93:16–17, 20; emphasis added).

The stunning reality, according to Joseph Smith, is that the very purpose of human life consists in the fact that humankind has been invited “into” this relationship through the atonement of Jesus. God wants to relate to us just as the divine persons relate to one another; God wants us to be one in the Father and the Son as they are one in each other. God desires to be “at-onement” with persons.

1. Men will never be equal to God and will always be subordinate to God:

Although Joseph taught a very lofty view of man’s eschatological potential in asserting that man has the potential to become a god and enter into close association with the Godhead, he also made clear that those who become gods will be forever subordinate to the Godhead. As we progress and attain God’s present glory, God progresses also to reach a higher exaltation and remains our God.

I could list 3-5 more of these things I think, but this should be enough.
Stephen, you do not represent Mormonism. As a non-Mormon you are worse than many non-Mormons at explaining our views. I do not know what you saw in Paulsen’s article that made you so giddy, but I do not think you read it very well and I regularly think your preconceptions cause you to jump to poor conclusions.

Perhaps if you thought you could address what I actually believe you would not feel the need to try to define my position out of the conversation. Even in the absence of this ability, I do not appreciate that you usually declare my view is some non-Mormon thing that should be ignored. It is my view, it is Ostler’s view, in the broad strokes it is Paulsen’s and Madsen’s and … view.

Did you even read Paulsen’s article?
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom,

The Council of Trent corrected abuses. It also systematically compiled the Catechism of Trent. The Catechism we use today is the Council of Trent, but more written concerning each doctrine.

Likewise, every doctrine of faith in the Catechism shows footnotes that provide the source, most from Sacred Scripture.

I remember reading in our local Catholic newspaper of a young woman who was searching for authentic Christianity, and she grew up in an anti Catholic Protestant home. She read early Christian teachings. And then when she acquired a modern Catholic catechism, she found the same teachings and became Catholic.

Does the Council of Trent use the term “gods” when it refers to deified humans. It might, I have not looked.
It is this LANGUAGE position that I am saying changed. Again, I do not believe that the writing of the new CCC lead to a change in the doctrines of deification believed by many or most Catholic scholar prior to 1992. I just do not believe Catholics used the language of Irenaeus and would call such language “blasphemy” when they encountered it disconnected from pillars of orthodoxy.

And lest I be too nice, I do not believe Catholics believe what Irenaeus beleived, now or for many centuries before 1992. That is not what I am talking about though.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

…but for now I’d just like what you consider to be “proof texts” for Mormon exaltation, and maybe a brief, 100 word elaboration.

Stephen,
I don’t usually respond to you, but since you are not really responding to me perhaps I will.
You should read the OP. It was absolutely responded to. What quotes from the ECF are used? The quotes I provided! Done!

Not done

 

[Stephen168]

1. Men can become gods.
2. There exist many gods.
3. The gods exist one above another innumerably.
4. God was once as man now is.
5. God and the spirit of man are uncreated

"David Paulsen:

In the King Follett Discourse159 delivered in the spring of 1844, Joseph Smith taught, “The mind of man—the intelligent part—is as immortal as, and is coequal [co-eternal] with, God himself.

David Paulsen:

Indeed, Joseph boldly proclaimed that humans are of the same origin and species as God: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!”

David Paulsen:

Conventional Christianity sees deification as a change in which the deified being takes on divine attributes but essentially is still of a different species than God.

The ancient analogy of theosis is the poker on the fire. While the poker takes on many attributes of fire, it never becomes fire; it remains iron.

The quote Bradshaw makes of Aquinas comes from the question: Do the angels see God through his essence? To stay with the analogy; will we see the fire and know it is God?

While Aquinas says we will see the fire and know it is God, he is not saying we will become God. We will not become the fire.

Believing we can know the fire doesn’t mean we will become the fire as Mormon’s believe. Mormons believe we are a spark which will become fire; God in embryo. Christianity has never taught such a thing. According to David Paulsen, Joseph Smith made it up in 1844.

David Paulsen:

In summary, Joseph Smith taught a unique form of human deification which emphasizes the genetic principle that humans are essentially the same species as God. He would have agreed most with the “gods in embryo” analogy.

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen,
I may see the problem. You may see in Paulsen’s words, “gods in embryo” something that is not there. OR you may see an absence in my words the concept that ontologically we are the same species as God. I cannot be blamed for the first, but if it is the second, let me correct it.

First, Paulsen. If you think “gods in embryo” means that like a baby human raised by wolves becomes genetically an adult therefore such a human was a “human in embryo” to become a full human and that this is what Paulsen means when he says “gods in embryo;” this is inconsistent with numerous passages in Paulsen’s essay (some of which I quoted). There is no natural growth without divine intervention that leads to man’s deification. “Gods in embryo” does not mean we have within us the ability to grow to be gods without: 1.God lifting us up. 2.Uniting with God into the divine community. 3.The atonement (both as a “price” for our sins and as an “at-one-ment”).

Now, for my position.
In the last few days, I have claimed that the homoousian clause from Nicea is something a LDS could embrace if they understood it as it was understood by Eusebius of Caesarea (or by the Council of Chalcedon). But that this common –ousia (same substance, consubstantial) is of really no consequence in my thoughts of divinity as such. In a thread where you participated about 5 years ago I said:

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.

How about this; what specifically do you believe Paulsen embraces in his essay (again I had a very small part in it) that I have rejected today? I read over the deification section again quickly and I do not see it.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

The first time I became aware of 460 of the Catholic Catechism was on Catholic Answers Forum when a Mormon pointed it out claiming, “Look Catholics believe what Mormons believe.” A Catholic’s first reaction would be to reject it. Not what the Catechism said, but the Mormon interpretation of it.

I knew that the Christian understanding of “make men gods” is different from the Mormon understanding. This started a discussion WHAT it means to Catholics and Mormons to be made a man god.

As I pointed out in Post #25, and David Paulsen agreed, is Mormons believe they are “gods in embryo.” Someday they will become just like God is now and God was once just like us. Which is different from Catholic and therefore, ancient Christian belief, as I pointed out in post #54 and again in post #70. This is the difference in WHAT is means to become god.

In Post #21, Tom claims because Catholics believe we will see the essence of God in heaven, that we therefore, believe we will come that essence (God). This makes no sense as I pointed out in post #54.

Now Tom is claiming that Catholics and Mormons agree on HOW we become god, therefore, we agree on WHAT it means to become god. This is not true and David Paulsen agrees.

Mormons cherry pick the early church fathers but none of the fathers taught what Joseph Smith taught about theosis.

 

[TOmNossor]

In Post #21, Tom claims because Catholics believe we will see the essence of God in heaven, that we therefore, believe we will come that essence (God). This makes no sense as I pointed out in post #54.

Perhaps there is hope and our list is getting shorter.
In post #21 I was not trying to suggest that “because Catholics believe we will see the essence of God in heaven, that we (you) therefore, believe we will come that essence (God).” In post #21 I was pointing out that Catholics and Orthodox (at least in their Aquinas and Palamas exposition) are very far apart. Orthodoxy who have maintained the teaching on deification at the forefront of their liturgy have done so with the understanding that God’s essence is so radically other that there is no experience of it by humans in this life or the next. Thus Orthodox theosis is the participation in God’s energies not essence. A very complete and full communion, but not such that God’s essence is anything but wholly other and unattainable. Catholics spoke very little of theosis and deification, and when they recognized this, MANY have adopted Orthodoxy’s terms. This IMO is a mistake and is a product of the neglect this doctrine received for so long in Catholic circles.

Now, when the author of the Bible says, “we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is” that IMO is talking about God’s nature. But, I believe the Catholic church and the Bible authors understand these verses differently (I am sure this is shocking).

Now Tom is claiming that Catholics and Mormons agree on HOW we become god, therefore, we agree on WHAT it means to become god. This is not true and David Paulsen agrees.

I do not think I am claiming that Catholics and Mormons agree. I claim that LDS and ALL ECF before the fourth century believe that men are completely deified. That Christ became what we are completely, and we are to become what He is/was completely. Christ did not derivatively / partially participate in our human nature and we will not just partially, but FULLY participate in His nature. LDS and all ECF before the first century agree here. Modern Catholic have DEPARTED from the ECF in this.
So, I agree with David Paulsen that modern Catholics are wrong and LDS are right. Paulsen goes to great lengths to show one of the POSSIBLE seeds for the Catholic / West’s departure from the truth. He explains that Augustine in his anti-Pelagius writings specifically steered the Catholic faith away from deification. So, while I am not sure exactly what Paulsen believes concerning the alignment of the ECF and the LDS on deification, his assertion that modern Catholics and LDS together with his tracing of Augustine’s changes make it quite plausible that he agrees with me that the ECF’s view of the FINAL STATE of deified man was much closer to the LDS view than to the modern Catholic view.
Now, I should note that Justin Martyr was the last ECF who wrote clearly about his rejection of creation ex nihilo. Irenaeus shortly after this wrote clearly on his acceptance of creation ex nihilo. The bulk of the deification language in the early church does not BEGIN at the same place as the LDS deification language. LDS have never embrace the radical creator / creature dichotomy that comes with creation ex nihilo.

Mormons cherry pick the early church fathers but none of the fathers taught what Joseph Smith taught about theosis.

Justin Martyr did not believe in creation ex nihilo and did believe in deification (though we have less of his material on it than we do for many other Fathers.
Irenaeus believed in creation ex nihilo, but he continued to speak of men’s deification without offering the types of qualified deifications that would exist 2+ centuries later.
Augustine was doubtful that deification was full and complete, but he still spoke of deification.
After Augustine, the doctrine of deification in the west was very seldom mentioned, but this is beginning to change.

It should be noted that the exchange formula has roots in the Bible and was very important for many ECF Irenaeus being a prime example. Below I will reproduce what I consider to be an unfortunate agenda driven overlay to the exchange formula by a modern Catholic author. No ancient Catholic author hinted that they would embrace this overlay. The modern Catholic author IMO takes extraordinary and unwarranted liberty in his diametrically opposed reading of a simple phrase. This is FAR worse than anything a LDS might do with these ECF writings. I will try to show you what I mean in the next post.
Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

This is from a LDS review of Daniel Keating’s book, Deification and Grace. The quotes inside the quotes are from the book with page references.
publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1443&index=14

In the thought-world of the Fathers, “participation”
and its cognate words (participate, partake, share, etc.) had a more definite
meaning than they do for us today. They inherited a common philosophical
understanding of these terms—derived from Plato, Aristotle, and the
Neo-Platonists—and they re-fashioned them to describe a specifically
Christian understanding of God, creation, and redemption in Christ. The concept
of participation was used philosophically in two main senses. First, it
described how different particulars all share some common element. For example,
all individual human beings share a common humanity, and so “partake”
of a common nature. In this case each human being shares in this nature
equally. Second (and crucially for our purposes), the concept of participation
was used to describe the unequal relationship between what is essential and
what is derivative. If a king is understood to have authority in himself, then
his first minister would participate in that authority. More significantly, if
God is the source of all being, then we as creatures participate in his being.
We do not share or participate in the divine being as God himself possesses it.
Rather, we share in his being in that he gives us our created being by bringing
us into existence. He has it essentially; we have it derivatively and by
participation. He is being; we participate in being. Participation is a way of
speaking about how “in him we live and move and have our being” (Acts
17:28). (p. 97)

From the above understanding of the word participate, it seems that Keating could suggest that Christ participates in the human nature derivatively and that deified humans thus participate in the divine nature derivatively as well. This would be a consistent way to read the exchange formula even though Irenaeus and the Bible seem to indicate a stronger form of participation/partaking.

This, however, is not Keating’s point. …

Keating offers a remarkable proposal. The exchange formula evidenced in the Bible and in patristic writings before the fourth century should be read with two different meanings for the concept of partaking/participating—namely, when Christ participated in our nature (i.e., became man), that transformation was complete and full; but when we participate in his nature, that process is derivative and does not involve a change in our created nature.

It is noteworthy that both parts of the “formula of exchange”—the
Son became like us, so that we might become like the Son—are expressed in
the New Testament in terms of participation. In Hebrews 2:14 the Incarnation
itself is depicted in the language of participation: “Since therefore, the
children share (koinōnein) in flesh and blood, he himself
likewise partook (metechein) of the same [nature].” Here we have an
example of the first sense of participation, namely, sharing in a common
nature. In order to redeem us and “to bring many sons to glory” (Heb
2:10), the Son of God came to share fully in our nature, that is, he became a human
being. But the goal of the Son sharing in our nature is also stated in participationist
language. We are told in 2 Peter 1:4 that God’s divine power at work in us is
brought to completion by our becoming “partakers (koinōnoi)
of the divine nature.” Here we have in bold and demonstrative language the
promise that the Father has sent the Son to deliver us from sin and to cause us
to become sharers in the divine nature itself. But in 2 Peter 1:4 we have an
example of the second sense of participation, the unequal and derivative
sharing by the creature in the infinite Creator. In this case, we as partakers
never become, strictly speaking, what we partake of. We partake of the divine
life, but do not become God by nature. And so we can rephrase the formula of
exchange (“the Son of God became the Son of Man, so that the sons of men
might become sons of God”) in terms of the two senses of participation
found respectively in Hebrews 2 and 2 Peter 1. The Son of God partook of our
nature and became fully what we are (human beings), so that we might partake of
the divine nature and become by grace and participation what he is by nature.
To put this in the creedal terminology of the Council of Chalcedon (a.d. 451): The eternal Word of God,
consubstantial with the Father, became fully a human being, consubstantial with
us in our nature, so that we might become partakers of his divinity. But we
never become consubstantial (one in being) with the Father as he is; rather, we
are inserted by grace into the divine communion of Persons. This is what it
means to become “gods by grace.” (p. 101)

For those who embrace the idea of limited deification and wish to reconcile it with the witness of the Bible and the early church fathers, Keating’s approach may provide a way out. Nevertheless, there is no evidence to suggest that the biblical authors (and almost no evidence for Irenaeus) would have been so blatantly inconsistent in the course of two halves of one sentence.

I think Keating deals with the exchange formula in one way available to him, but his position that the ECF spoke using one meaning from partake/participate when speaking about Christ taking human nature (and in the same sentence using the same word) used a different meaning for partake/participate when it comes to our connection with the divine is tortured IMO. It is much more egregious of an infraction against the ECF than your purported “cherry picking.” It is the creation of a discontinuity in their thought they never acknowledge or explained despite their regular use of the exchange formula.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen,
So I hope I have been somewhat clearer.

A. LDS (as explained by Paulsen {who Stephen thinks does a good job of defining the CoJCoLDS} and by Ostler and by Tom) SHARE with Catholics the following three things concerning deification:

1. The need for a redeemer to elevate us to God so that we can become gods:

Thus, through the sanctifying influence of the Holy Ghost, Christ’s atonement makes it possible for man to transcend his fallen state and become a partaker of the divine nature.

1. A large component of deification is the entering into the relationship of God and uniting with God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit):

Finally, Joseph realized that an essential property of divinity is a relationship of sacred and intimate unity with the persons of the Godhead. As Joseph stated in an 1833 revelation:

{Christ} received a fulness of the glory of the Father; and he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him, and it shall come to pass that if you are faithful . . . you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace (D&C 93:16–17, 20; emphasis added).

The stunning reality, according to Joseph Smith, is that the very purpose of human life consists in the fact that humankind has been invited “into” this relationship through the atonement of Jesus. God wants to relate to us just as the divine persons relate to one another; God wants us to be one in the Father and the Son as they are one in each other. God desires to be “at-onement” with persons.

1. Men will never be equal to God and will always be subordinate to God:

Although Joseph taught a very lofty view of man’s eschatological potential in asserting that man has the potential to become a god and enter into close association with the Godhead, he also made clear that those who become gods will be forever subordinate to the Godhead. As we progress and attain God’s present glory, God progresses also to reach a higher exaltation and remains our God.

B. LDS share with the very early church (St. Justin Martyr and earlier) the rejection of Creation ex Nihilo, but later Fathers and modern Catholics believe in Creation ex Nihilo.

C. LDS share with ECF before the 4th century the exchange formula such that Christ became completely what we are so that we might become completely what He is/was. Modern Catholics and post 4th century ECF put limits on the final state of deified men (though they continue to insist that Christ became homoousian completely with humans, just the other half of the exchange formula is disconnected by the introduction of a different meaning for the same word across two halves of the same sentence).

For point of absolute clarity let me also mention that I do not know where David Paulsen stands on this next thing, but I do know that Daniel Peterson (and many LDS) do not agree with Blake Ostler and me.

D. God the Father was once like us just as Christ was once like us. But, it is my position and Ostler’s position that this does not mean that God the Father was more like us than Christ. A common position within the CoJCoLDS is that God the Father once lived and worshiped His God the Father. I disagree with this and follow Ostler’s view that Joseph Smith was instead teaching that God the Father became a man like Christ became a man, not like we were/are men. A point of support in this belief is the way Joseph Smith always taught this doctrine. Another point of support is the almost complete refusal to claim that God the Father ever SINNED. And it should be noted that less than 25% of folks in the CoJCoLDS are like Ostler, Peterson, and TOm. The bulk of the church doesn’t even consider the question and thus they do not believe that God the Father had a Father. Among those who consider it however the Ostler/TOm view appears to be in the minority. I will also mention that Irenaeus seems to offer the same advice that the CoJCoLDS follows (and I am not following as well as I should BTW) when he says:

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.

Anyway, I hope I have clarified where I think LDS agree and disagree with modern Catholics, where I think LDS agree and disagree with the ECF, and that I think the LDS are right, the ECF are more often right than modern Catholics and ….
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

St. Irenaeus:

For the Uncreated is perfect, that is, God. Now it was necessary that man should in the first instance be created; and having been created, should receive growth; and having received growth, should be strengthened; and having been strengthened, should abound; and having abounded, should recover [from the disease of sin]; and having recovered, should be glorified; and being glorified, should see his Lord. For God is He who is yet to be seen, and the beholding of God is productive of immortality, but immortality renders one near unto God.

S. Athanasius:

He said that God had made all things out of pre-existent and uncreated matter, just as the carpenter makes things only out of wood that already exists. But those who hold this view do not realize that to deny that God is Himself the Cause of matter is to impute limitation to Him, just as it is undoubtedly a limitation on the part of the carpenter that he can make nothing unless he has the wood. How could God be called Maker and Artificer if His ability to make depended on some other cause, namely on matter itself?

Joseph Smith:

He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.

Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Gods and humans represent a single divine lineage, the same species of being, although they and he are at different stages of progress. This doctrine is stated concisely in a well-known couplet by President Lorenzo Snow: “As man now is, God once was: as God now is, man may be”

The teachings of Irenaeus gives us the final state of man. Athanasius tells us why there can only be one God. Now all a Mormon has to do is find an ECF that states that God the Father was once a man.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
I have no idea what you mean when you say, “you know very well that this is how Mormonism teaches about you become a god.”
Do you mean that Mormonism owns the idea that we are self-deifiers? This is ridiculous and untrue.
Do you mean that Mormonism teaches that we are to desire deification for self-aggrandizement? This is ridiculous and untrue.
Do you mean that I personally am lying when I claim that when I hold to the doctrine of deification it is about attributing to God the good-making properties He is due? This is also untrue, and I am the world authority on what I believe.

I really do not know what you mean.
Charity, TOm

I’m saying I know a Mormon lesson on exaltation when I see it. All Mormon lessons on exaltation have a root aspiration for becoming a god. All Mormons are motivated by the Mormon church teachings to be ambitious towards their own deification.

 

[gazelam]

The teachings of Irenaeus gives us the final state of man. Athanasius tells us why there can only be one God. Now all a Mormon has to do is find an ECF that states that God the Father was once a man.

Isn’t the Irenaeus quote somewhat lacking from a Catholic POV given that Catholics believe God is invisible? And isn’t immortality given freely to all, even to Judas Iscariot, Hilter, Stalin, and bin Laden? Perhaps the quote was mistranslated, but shouldn’t the goal be something along the lines of eternal life as opposed to immortality?

 

[gazelam]

The teachings of Irenaeus gives us the final state of man. Athanasius tells us why there can only be one God. Now all a Mormon has to do is find an ECF that states that God the Father was once a man.

The OP only asked for patristic quotes that LDS “find favorable” to LDS belief regarding man’s ability to become like God and they were provided. It doesn’t mean LDS believe that every last aspect of that doctrine can be justified by a patristic quote, or even needs to be.

As an aside the LDS website here: lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng states that “What exactly the early church fathers meant when they spoke of becoming God is open to interpretation”

Then footnote 15 of that post says this:

There are likely important differences as well as similarities between the thinking of the church fathers and Latter-day Saint teachings. For a discussion of similarities and differences between exaltation as understood by Latter-day Saints and modern Eastern Orthodox understanding of statements by church fathers on deification, see Jordan Vajda, “Partakers of the Divine Nature: A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization,” Occasional Papers Series, no. 3 (2002), available at maxwellinstitute.byu.edu.

 

[Stephen168]

Isn’t the Irenaeus quote somewhat lacking from a Catholic POV given that Catholics believe God is invisible? And isn’t immortality given freely to all, even to Judas Iscariot, Hilter, Stalin, and bin Laden? Perhaps the quote was mistranslated, but shouldn’t the goal be something along the lines of eternal life as opposed to immortality?

Oxford Dictionary:

Immortality is the ability to live forever or eternal life