Trinity and Mormon godhead

[RebeccaJ]

Do you think that attacking LDS beliefs and branding them false, like name-calling, is and effective tactic?

The God that Mormons believe in is the God of Abraham and Isaac. The God of the Old Testament. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost of the New Testament. Now you may consider that a false god, but that’s your business.

Look, your first post on a Catholic forum is all about how false the very key doctrine, OUR BELIEF of GOD, was all made up by philosophers.

The god of Mormonism is not the God of the OT or the NT. It is a false god, a product of the mind of Joseph Smith & Co. It does not exist anywhere, in 2000 years of Christianity.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

**Rebecca: **Well then, this is what the Orthodox have to say about Mormonism and *theosis *(which any catholic agrees):

RA: Sweet. I see the doctrine of *theosis *will be dealt with excellently here. :hug1:

RA

 

[Richard_Abanes]

SNOW: Do you think that attacking LDS beliefs and branding them false, like name-calling, is and effective tactic?

RA: Hmmm, this is actually how your own leaders, including Smith, started out your church – i.e., by attacking Christendom beliefs and branding them false, like name-calling. Shall you agree now, or do you want quotes tomorrow? You’re choice. It’s getting late now. But let me know. Choose wisely.

RA

 

[RebeccaJ]

Thirty years ago you couldn’t find much of anything on the topic of early Christian beliefs of theosis / diefication. Now it is understood to have been a widespread doctrine of the early Church, different is aspects, certainly, than the LDS view, but clearly taught and accepted.

Theosis (Eastern Church) or beatification (Western Church) has always been a doctrine of catholicism.

What is new is that mormons discovered Christian history, and like everything Christian, are attempting to twist history itself to a contortion that was never meant to be.

 

[Snow]

The Mormons are clear promoters of henotheism, and the Church Fathers have absolutely no commonality with their view."

That’s demonstrably untrue. There is a good deal of commonality.

The exact same terminology is used to describe the status of those that attain the full blessings of salvation: they are gods..

They are “partakers of the divine nature.”

In both Patristic and LDS writings Jesus Christ is the one who makes divination possible - and apart from Christ no human person could ever overcome the obstacles of physical or spiritual death.

Human cooperation and participation in the process of salvation is essential to both theosis and exaltation. The principle power is God’s grace but engagement in good works is crucial.

Both theosis and exaltation teach that God uses material realities, sacraments and ordinances to communicate divine life and grace.

Both theosis and exaltation understand heaven to be a place where divinized humans continue to learn, grow and do - eternal progression.

And that’s not me saying so - that Fr. Jordan Vajda, OP saying so.

 

[Snow]

SNOW: Do you think that attacking LDS beliefs and branding them false, like name-calling, is and effective tactic?

RA: Hmmm, this is actually how your own leaders, including Smith, started out your church – i.e., by attacking Christendom beliefs and branding them false, like name-calling. Shall you agree now, or do you want quotes tomorrow? You’re choice. It’s getting late now. But let me know. Choose wisely.

RA

Great - some people I never met in the 19th century - on both sides of the ledger - used fiery rhetoric. And that is relative to this discussion… how?

 

[PaulDupre]

Great - some people I never met in the 19th century - on both sides of the ledger - used fiery rhetoric. And that is relative to this discussion… how?

Fiery rhetoric? Is that what you call the canonized teaching of Joseph Smith’s first vision?

By the way, according to Smith it was not “some people” who used this “fiery rhetoric” - it was Jesus Christ Himself.

That is very relevant to this discussion because it is not just rhetoric, it is canonized LDS doctrine enshrined in your Pearl of Great Price.

 

[RebeccaJ]

That’s demonstrably untrue. There is a good deal of commonality.

The exact same terminology is used to describe the status of those that attain the full blessings of salvation: they are gods..

Christian terminology has NOTHING to do with Mormonism. Mormonism has taken every Christian term and redefined it, starting with the word GOD.

They are “partakers of the divine nature.”

In both Patristic and LDS writings Jesus Christ is the one who makes divination possible - and apart from Christ no human person could ever overcome the obstacles of physical or spiritual death.

PARTAKERS of the divine nature, not exaltation. If I partake of a steak, do I become a cow?

Human cooperation and participation in the process of salvation is essential to both theosis and exaltation. The principle power is God’s grace but engagement in good works is crucial.

Both theosis and exaltation teach that God uses material realities, sacraments and ordinances to communicate divine life and grace.

That is a Mormon interpretation.

There is no such thing as exaltation in Christian thought, now, or in any of the Church Fathers.

Yes, cooperation with God is necessary, that is how we become holy. That is how we follow Jesus Christ.

The Sacraments are an outward sign of an inward grace. They communicate nothing about exaltation.

Both theosis and exaltation understand heaven to be a place where divinized humans continue to learn, grow and do - eternal progression.

Theosis is partaking of the divine nature, not the created becoming the Creator. There is always, in Christian teachings, a division between the Creator (God) and created (us). We are not the same and never will be.

And that’s not me saying so - that Fr. Jordan Vajda, OP saying so.

Vajda, as already pointed out, is an apostate. Shall I quote D. Michael Quinn for you? Or how about, Simon Southerton?

 

[Snow]

Theosis (Eastern Church) or beatification (Western Church) has always been a doctrine of catholicism.

What is new is that mormons discovered Christian history, and like everything Christian, are attempting to twist history itself to a contortion that was never meant to be.

Interesting - I talk to Catholics regularly - as I work for a large Catholic entity founded by Sisters. Not a one - outside the internet - that I have ever talked to knows a thing about it. Recent major reference works - for example Encyclopedia of the Early Church (Oxford) and Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (Garland - 1st edition) don’t even mention it. There are some pre-1980 works on it but most interest and awareness has happened more recently.

From the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Canonization in the Catholic Church is quite another thing. The Catholic Church canonizes or beatifies only those whose lives have been marked by the exercise of heroic virtue, and only after this has been proved by common repute for sanctity and by conclusive arguments. The chief difference, however, lies in the meaning of the term canonization, the Church seeing in the saints nothing more than friends and servants of God whose holy lives have made them worthy of His special love. She does not pretend to make gods (cf. Eusebius Emisenus, Serm. de S. Rom. M.; Augustine, City of God XXII.10; Cyrill. Alexandr., Contra Jul., lib. VI; Cyprian, De Exhortat. martyr.; Conc. Nic., II, act. 3).”

Full Text: newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

That’s hardly the early Christian doctrine of deification.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Interesting - I talk to Catholics regularly - as I work for a large Catholic entity founded by Sisters. Not a one - outside the internet - that I have ever talked to knows a thing about it. Recent major reference works - for example Encyclopedia of the Early Church (Oxford) and Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (Garland - 1st edition) don’t even mention it. There are some pre-1980 works on it but most interest and awareness has happened more recently.

From the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Canonization in the Catholic Church is quite another thing. The Catholic Church canonizes or beatifies only those whose lives have been marked by the exercise of heroic virtue, and only after this has been proved by common repute for sanctity and by conclusive arguments. The chief difference, however, lies in the meaning of the term canonization, the Church seeing in the saints nothing more than friends and servants of God whose holy lives have made them worthy of His special love. She does not pretend to make gods (cf. Eusebius Emisenus, Serm. de S. Rom. M.; Augustine, City of God XXII.10; Cyrill. Alexandr., Contra Jul., lib. VI; Cyprian, De Exhortat. martyr.; Conc. Nic., II, act. 3).”

Full Text: newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

That’s hardly the early Christian doctrine of deification.

As I said, the Western Church, the Roman Catholic Church, uses the term “beatification”, more precisely, “beatific vision”. And is in fact what our doctrine on heaven is all about.

And clearly, you have focused on the Western Church. The Orthodox are catholic, we share the same beliefs of heaven. The Orthodox call the beatific vision, theosis.

And you don’t know the Christian doctrine of deification. You ascribe to Christianity your own beliefs.

Canonization is a process, not a sanctifying grace. I think you are very confused on this matter. We believe the saints are with God, partaking of His divine nature. We do not believe they are Gods.

 

[Snow]

Christian terminology has NOTHING to do with Mormonism. Mormonism has taken every Christian term and redefined it, starting with the word GOD.

That’s not really a rebuttal. That’s just harping.

PARTAKERS of the divine nature, not exaltation. If I partake of a steak, do I become a cow?

More harping. If you think I am wrong, try demonstrating that I am wrong.

That is a Mormon interpretation.

Uh - NO. Demonstrably no. That is an interpretation of a Roman Catholic Dominican Monk in his master thesis.

There is no such thing as exaltation in Christian thought, now, or in any of the Church Fathers.

You say it as if saying it, makes it so. It doesn’t.

Exaltation is that whereby man becomes god. The Patristic understanding of salvation as deification was that man was to become like God. It was “by far the most widespread understanding of salvation” of the early centuries of the Catholic Church [J. Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, Vol 1}

As Athanasius put it: “God was made man that we might be made God.” [De Inc 54]

The central teaching of early Christianity on salvation was

Yes, cooperation with God is necessary, that is how we become holy. That is how we follow Jesus Christ.

The Sacraments are an outward sign of an inward grace. They communicate nothing about exaltation.

Theosis is partaking of the divine nature, not the created becoming the Creator. There is always, in Christian teachings, a division between the Creator (God) and created (us). We are not the same and never will be.

No one claimed, that I am aware of, that anyone becomes the Creator. meaning God, our Father in Heaven so I am not sure what your point is.

Vajda, as already pointed out, is an apostate. Shall I quote D. Michael Quinn for you? Or how about, Simon Southerton?

Probably what you meant to say is that at the time he wrote his Master’s Thesis, Fr. Jordan Vajda, OP was a Roman Catholic Dominican Monk in good standing graduating from the Graduate Theological Union at the University of California, Berkley. At the time his paper was published at BYU, he was the Assistant Director of the Campus Ministry of the Blessed Sacrament in Seattle.

Later, his interest piqued by what he had learned in his Patristic studies and LDS parallels, he left is calling and converted to Church of Jesus Christ, LDS.

… but if it makes you feel more secure to brand his apostate - which he wasn’t at the time of his writing, by all means, go ahead.

… And if Dr. Quinn has anything to contribute on theosis, please bring it to the discussion. He belongs to my study group (though I haven’t seen him for a couple years now) and I enjoy his work.

 

[RebeccaJ]

That’s not really a rebuttal. That’s just harping.

More harping. If you think I am wrong, try demonstrating that I am wrong.

Not harping, it is the truth. Tell me any Christian term and tell me the Mormon meaning assigned to it. They are different. You cannot say you see the same terminology and tell me it has a Christian meaning without telling me you have changed the meaning of the terms.

Saying it is harping does not address this very basic fact.

Uh - NO. Demonstrably no. That is an interpretation of a Roman Catholic Dominican Monk in his master thesis.

You say it as if saying it, makes it so. It doesn’t.

[quqote]Exaltation is that whereby man becomes god. The Patristic understanding of salvation as deification was that man was to become like God. It was “by far the most widespread understanding of salvation” of the early centuries of the Catholic Church [J. Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, Vol 1}

As Athanasius put it: “God was made man that we might be made God.” [De Inc 54]

Again, you are putting your mormon spin to Christian belief.

No one claimed, that I am aware of, that anyone becomes the Creator.

meaning God, our Father in Heaven so I am not sure what your point is.

Of course this is the mormon claim of exaltation. Why are you pretending that it is not. Exaltation=becoming the Creator of your own worlds and your own humans who will worship you. It is a belief that the created becomes the Creator. Which is not possible in Christian thought, early, or now.

Probably what you meant to say is that at the time he wrote his Master’s Thesis, Fr. Jordan Vajda, OP was a Roman Catholic Dominican Monk in good standing graduating from the Graduate Theological Union at the University of California, Berkley. At the time his paper was published at BYU, he was the Assistant Director of the Campus Ministry of the Blessed Sacrament in Seattle.

I said what I meant to say. Probably what you meant to say is “I’m sorry for being so arrogant.”

Later, his interest piqued by what he had learned in his Patristic studies and LDS parallels, he left is calling and converted to Church of Jesus Christ, LDS.

… but if it makes you feel more secure to brand his apostate - which he wasn’t at the time of his writing, by all means, go ahead.

One priest does not define Catholic doctrine. And that he left catholicism, says that he has been deceived. He wouldn’t be the first to be deceived by his own thoughts.

… And if Dr. Quinn has anything to contribute on theosis, please bring it to the discussion. He belongs to my study group (though I haven’t seen him for a couple years now) and I enjoy his work.

 

[TOmNossor]

Ok, I really enjoy the discussion of deification so let me offer some of my thoughts.

First, most LDS who I have seen talk about “intelligence” believe that God and all men are eternal individual intelligences. This would make Richard’s initial characterization of this a minority view, but I have little doubt there is diversity within the writings of earlier LDS and like diversity within the thoughts of LDS today. Ostler, Madsen, England, Peterson, Paulsen, and ??? I think have all aligned themselves with the idea of “individual eternal intelligences. I do not know of any scholar who has chosen a different path. All that being said, I would not suggest that our scriptures demand “individual eternal intelligences.”

Next, the ECF and their use by LDS. Above is mentioned the main difference IMO between LDS and non-LDS. After Justin Martyr (where we find most discussions of deification) there is no ECF who does not accept creation ex nihilo. This means that the STARTING point for human deification is different for the ECF who discussion the topic as compared to LDS who discuss the topic.
That being said, St. Justin and most likely St. Clement of Rome did not embrace creation ex nihilo. According to non-LDS scholar Gerard May, creation ex nihilo was a 2nd century development (May is interesting because while he claims creation ex nihilo is a developed doctrine, he believes it is a positive and necessary development). In addition to this, most Biblical scholars now recognize that the Bible does not teach creation ex nihilo. (It should be noted that not embracing creation ex nihilo is not the same as embracing eternal intelligences. There are some modern non-LDS Biblical scholars that can help LDS with this from the Bible, but it is far from clear).
Anyway, what I think is most importing and interesting is that no pre-Nicene ECF placed limits upon the final state of deified man. The Bible and the ECF teach that Christ is what we are to become through grace. While we are not divine today (and LDS must acknowledge that Christ in mortality was very different than we are in mortality), we can become so through grace.

Gregory Palamas built upon (introduced) the essence / energies distinction in EO theosis. Many Catholics have inappropriately embraced this, but Western Tradition points strongly to the belief that salvation includes communion with God’s essence (not to mention divine simplicity which makes this separation pretty difficult).
Catholic theology does not seem to have authoritatively defined limits in deified men, but most Catholics follow later Athanasian writing and Augustine’s writing and place limits upon the deification of man. I see nothing irreformable that has been declared. It is interesting that the CCC boldly says that men can become gods, but does not explain what is meant by this.

Richard’s first book on Mormonism clearly condemned LDS beliefs in deification. While it was not discussed in detail, there was no sense in which “men can become gods” offered in this book. Richard’s second book on Mormonism acknowledged that there was an orthodox sense in which men could become gods, but LDS were heretical. He even used a term against LDS deification that I embrace as part of LDS deification (before or after his book, I do not know): “monotheistic deification.” It was my initial impression that Richard’s interaction with LDS between the two books contributed to his education on this subject. Richard said that this was not the case and that he has always recognized that there is an orthodox sense in which men can become gods.

So, Richard, is CCC #460 an orthodox expression of Biblical theology? If so what does it mean? Can you find ECF before Nicea that offer the limits upon the words in CCC #460 that you seem to require?

One more thing. I do not know if Snow knew that Father Jordan Vajda became a LDS. However, it appears to me that you have mentioned Vajda’s conversion to the CoJCoLDS in a way that obscures the fact that he was a Catholic priest for about 5 years after he wrote his master’s thesis. And it would seem that his master’s thesis was accepted by various non-LDS scholars. To my knowledge none of these scholars may be so easily dismissed as “apostates who converted to Mormonism.” I think these things are relevant details you left out.

Charity, TOm

 

[PaulDupre]

Uh - NO. Demonstrably no. That is an interpretation of a Roman Catholic Dominican Monk in his master thesis.

Some priest asserting something in a master’s thesis does not make it Catholic doctrine. I’m surprised you would think it does. No priest has the authority to create Catholic doctrine. If the bishop of your ward stated in his master’s thesis that heavenly mother used to live on Mars, would that make it Mormon doctrine?

 

[Snow]

As I said, the Western Church, the Roman Catholic Church, uses the term “beatification”, more precisely, “beatific vision”. And is in fact what our doctrine on heaven is all about.

I certainly am no Catholic theologian but I can read and I am in a year long Catholic Formation and Development program that involves study of RCC theology. “Beatification” is an official step in the process of becoming a Saint whereby The Church accords recognition that someone now dead has ascended to heaven and has capacity to intercede on behalf of individuals.

“Beatific Vision” is the final, unobstructed, unmediated, face-to-face experience of God in heaven.

And clearly, you have focused on the Western Church. The Orthodox are catholic, we share the same beliefs of heaven. The Orthodox call the beatific vision, theosis.

Maybe, off hand I wouldn’t know, but I do know that theosis in the early Christian Church was not “the final, unobstructed, unmediated, face-to-face experience of God in heaven.” [Catholicism, McBrien p.37]

And you don’t know the Christian doctrine of deification.

You must fancy yourself psychic. I am curious to know how you know what I know or don’t know.

You ascribe to Christianity your own beliefs.

That’s kind of a nothing claim. If you can demonstrate that anything I have said about early Christian beliefs of theosis is incorrect, please do so.

My beliefs are Christian, you just don’t like them but you are not the arbiter of all things Christian.

Canonization is a process, not a sanctifying grace. I think you are very confused on this matter. We believe the saints are with God, partaking of His divine nature. We do not believe they are Gods.

Read my posts. I never claimed that you believed that Saints were God. I never even implied it.

 

[Snow]

Some priest asserting something in a master’s thesis does not make it Catholic doctrine. I’m surprised you would think it does. No priest has the authority to create Catholic doctrine. If the bishop of your ward stated in his master’s thesis that heavenly mother used to live on Mars, would that make it Mormon doctrine?

I don’t know what on earth you are referring to. I did not assert that Fr. Vajda declared Catholic doctrine and I have no idea why you claim that I did. Vajda thesis was a comparative analysis of Patristc and Mormon doctrines of divination. No one claimed that RCC doctrine was the same as Patristic doctrine.

 

[Snow]

One more thing. I do not know if Snow knew that Father Jordan Vajda became a LDS. However, it appears to me that you have mentioned Vajda’s conversion to the CoJCoLDS in a way that obscures the fact that he was a Catholic priest for about 5 years after he wrote his master’s thesis. And it would seem that his master’s thesis was accepted by various non-LDS scholars. To my knowledge none of these scholars may be so easily dismissed as “apostates who converted to Mormonism.” I think these things are relevant details you left out.

I did indeed know. I did not know at the time I read his thesis and thus began looking into the topic, but came to find out much later.

Your point is spot on - acting as if he was an apostate, and phrasing so that the uniformed read is left to conclude that his “apostacy” was somehow informing his views of Patristic doctrine - and so omitting that his conversion to the Church of Jesus Christ came years later, is… ah, unfortunate.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I certainly am no Catholic theologian but I can read and I am in a year long Catholic Formation and Development program that involves study of RCC theology. “Beatification” is an official step in the process of becoming a Saint whereby The Church accords recognition that someone now dead has ascended to heaven and has capacity to intercede on behalf of individuals.

“Beatific Vision” is the final, unobstructed, unmediated, face-to-face experience of God in heaven.

This is where you will find Catholic doctrine, the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**1023 **Those who die in God’s grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live for ever with Christ. They are like God for ever, for they “see him as he is,” face to face.

We believe to see God face to face that God must give us the grace to be like Him. I have no problem calling this deification, in the understanding that we are a creature, created by God, who gives us grace to be in communion with Him. We have a foretaste of this in our Sacrament of Marriage, in our communion with each other by virtue of our baptism and most of all in the Eucharist.

It is NOT the Mormon belief, as Mormons take partaking of the divine essence to being exalted. And have other doctrines associated to this belief that are entirely outside of Christianity.

Maybe, off hand I wouldn’t know, but I do know that theosis in the early Christian Church was not “the final, unobstructed, unmediated, face-to-face experience of God in heaven.” [Catholicism, McBrien p.37]

Same thing, as I already explained above.

You must fancy yourself psychic. I am curious to know how you know what I know or don’t know.

Because, if you understood it you wouldn’t be a mormon!

That’s kind of a nothing claim. If you can demonstrate that anything I have said about early Christian beliefs of theosis is incorrect, please do so.

How about the entirety of the catholic churches, east and west, who have nothing of this belief of mormonism.

My beliefs are Christian, you just don’t like them but you are not the arbiter of all things Christian.

Your beliefs are not Christian. I defend my faith, if you don’t like it, don’t make the claims you do.

Read my posts. I never claimed that you believed that Saints were God. I never even implied it.

You implied that we should believe they should be Gods.

 

[mfbukowski]

Thank you for the welcome.

I said I was new. I guess you suggesting that I am not honest???

Didn’t mean that at all – you just sound familiar. Maybe it was in the preexistence… Welcome again.

 

[Snow]

Not harping, it is the truth. Tell me any Christian term and tell me the Mormon meaning assigned to it. They are different. You cannot say you see the same terminology and tell me it has a Christian meaning without telling me you have changed the meaning of the terms.

Saying it is harping does not address this very basic fact.

I, as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ, am completely Christian. You not liking it is irrelevant. You claiming that Christian terminology is different that LDS terminology is likewise irrelevant. You don’t get to decide you follows Christ and who Christ recognizes. You merely have an opinion.

Frankly, anyone who feels the need to marginalize another’s Christianity has issues with themselves that ought be examined before fretting about others. My faith does not require me to denigrate your commitment to Christ or his acceptance of you if order for me to flourish. I leave that kind of judgement to God - as He is the only one of us, you and I, who has an opinion that counts.

Uh - NO. Demonstrably no. That is an interpretation of a Roman Catholic Dominican Monk in his master thesis.

You say it as if saying it, makes it so. It doesn’t.

[quqote]Exaltation is that whereby man becomes god. The Patristic understanding of salvation as deification was that man was to become like God. It was “by far the most widespread understanding of salvation” of the early centuries of the Catholic Church [J. Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, Vol 1}

As Athanasius put it: “God was made man that we might be made God.” [De Inc 54]

Again, you are putting your mormon spin to Christian belief.

I quoted Athanasius and Pelikan - who I assume is likely Catholic. Where’s the spin exactly?

Don’t just assert it - demonstrate that I did what you claim - if you can.

Of course this is the mormon claim of exaltation. Why are you pretending that it is not. Exaltation=becoming the Creator of your own worlds and your own humans who will worship you. It is a belief that the created becomes the Creator. Which is not possible in Christian thought, early, or now.

I certainly do not believe that I, even if I was ever exalted, would ever be “the Creator” as you assert. Nor do I suppose that I would ever be separate and independent of God. Rather I believe that any divinization would unify me (those who have a fullness of salvation with God who is The Creator… as Christ prays in John 17 that will impart to us the same glory that God the Father gave Him, we will be one, and perfected into one, with God as Christ is one with God.

I said what I meant to say. Probably what you meant to say is “I’m sorry for being so arrogant.”

Then what you “meant to say” was misleading them. You know full well that he was a Dominican Monk at the time and didn’t leave the faith until much later. Why the deliberate misdirection?

BTW, what’s up with the name-calling?

One priest does not define Catholic doctrine. And that he left catholicism, says that he has been deceived. He wouldn’t be the first to be deceived by his own thoughts.

You know perfectly well that no one asserted he was speaking on Catholic doctrine. Read the post. He was speaking of Patristic teachings.