Trinity and Mormon godhead

[TOmNossor]

BDawg,
I enjoyed you contribution as always. I think there is much to the Greek thought world creating problems for the apostolic deposit of faith. Of course I believe if the apostolic authority was still present then contact with the Greek thought world could contribute positively to the elucidation of Biblical ideas, so I think the core of the issue has to do with authority not Greek thought purely.
Still, I very much agree that creation ex nihilo was introduced to a religion that did not have such a concept and probably embraced creation ex materia instead. I think Gerard May is important for this.
Also, you mentioned some of the philosophical characteristics, “After the mid-second century, most of the ECFs believed in a Greek philosophical definition of God, as a simple, eternally and absolutely immutable, immaterial, spiritual substance or essence. If God is absolutely “immutable” in every sense, then the Divine Substance can’t be added to in any way.” I very much enjoy the thoughts of renowned Eastern Orthodox scholar Jarsolav Pelikan:
The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) pp. 22

In Judaism it was possible simultaneously to ascribe change of purpose to God and to declare that God did not change, without resolving the paradox; for the immutability of God was seen as the trustworthiness of his covenanted relation to his people in the concrete history of his judgment and mercy, rather than as a primarily ontological category. But in the development of the Christian doctrine of God, immutability assumed the status of an axiomatic presupposition for the discussion of other doctrines.

Pelikan for immutability (like May for Creation ex Nihilo) believes this DEVELOPMENT is a positive. As a LDS, I do not believe God is flighty or fickle, but the absolute impassibility and immutability of God was at the core of most of the controversies within the early church. I reject this absolute impassibility and I think it led to many incorrect creedal definitions.
As Early Church thinkers decided God was impassible, they had a problem with many things.

• Patripassians to me seem to be most wrong because they claim the Father and the Son are one person, but the historical name indicates part of the problem, “The Father suffered.”
  Not acceptable.
• Docetism claimed that Christ only appeared to suffer. Not acceptable, but motivated by the impassibility of God.
• Arians used various impassibility / passibility arguments too. Interestingly they were defeated by Athanasius who argued that if Christ was to lift men to divinity, Christ must be fully divine. Everyone accepted that Christ was to lift us to divinity!
• The dual nature Christology and many of the problems around one/two natures one/two wills, one/two persons also revolved around the need for God to be absolutely impassible and yet the man Christ suffered for our sins and died on the cross (not to mention eat/hungered, tired/slept, and …).

Within Catholicism there is a whole group of passiblists who recognize just how unbiblical impassiblism is, but they IMO miss the fact that much of the first 4 councils hinges upon God being impassible. If the passiblists are correct then the logic of the first four councils is vacated. So, together with Pelikan, there are a whole group of Catholics who recognize the Biblical problems of impassiblism, but unlike Pelikan they do not seem to recognize that they cannot embrace passiblism without emptying the church of the reasons behind 400-600 years of tradition.

Also, here is one of my favorite quotes from a LDS President on deification:

John Taylor, Mediation and Atonement

, Ch.20

… through the instrumentality of the atonement and the adoption, it is made possible for us to become of the family of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; and that as He, the potential instrument, through the oneness that existed between Him and His Father, by reason of obedience to divine law, overcame death, hell and the grave, and sat down upon His Father’s throne, so shall we be able to sit down with Him, even upon His throne.

Charity, TOm

 

[Richard_Abanes]

**BDawg: **… most negative possible light by distorting it. Why would we believe that we would be “gods apart from the Father,” when the point of our existence is to become one with the Father, just like Jesus (see John 17)?

**RA: **You, as a Mormon, view God and man as being of the SAME eternal essence/nature (i.e., intelligence). THAT is the crux of why Mormonism’s becoming LIKE God is not the same as the Christian’s view of becoming LIKE God.

We see it as an emulation and growth in our natures that make us reflect more of God’s communicable attributes. You see it as evolving into exactly what God as evolved into over eons of time. Your very definition of the nature of God is different than the Christian definition. We are NOT of the same species as God. So, please, do not equate our view of becoming LIKE God with your view of becoming LIKE God.

BDawg: Originally, Jews and Jewish Christians thought God the Father had a body in human form. . . . In the third century, Origen wrote that the Jews and some Christians believed that God had a body in human form, but he rejected this idea because the philosophers thought it was silly.

RA: Absolutely untrue. Stop it.

The Jews that YOU are referring to were occult Kabbalists who had drifted away from traditional Judaism and into the realm of pagan mystery religions that had influenced their thinking. Numerous texts had begun circulating among Jews, along with an oral tradition, that depicted God as a man in form.

And it was through shamanistic trances that such rabbis would seek to ascend through the realms of consciousness into the throne room of God to behold God in this form. And it was your Joseph Smith who based his views on Kabbalah. Again, we see the dark magickal, occult roots of Mormonism coming through.

BDawg: etc etc etc etc.

RA: Thanks to FARMS/FAIR, Mormons have become very adept at ripping all kinds of quotes from the ECFs to use in support of their views. Very, very few Christians have the means to actually look these things up, and read them, or study them – and that is your ace in the hole.

RA

 

[Richard_Abanes]

ASHLEY: First… they do NOT teach deification. They teach theosis. Please do not try to muddy the difference, these are not interchangable ideas. [BDawg: Since “theosis” is the Greek word for “deification,” I have no problem using either. I’m not sure what you think the distinction is. Personally, I prefer sticking to English when possible.]

**RA: **You see how Mormons seek to confuse and confound by throwing these terms around? They can lead you down bunny trail after bunny trail and throw in all manner of mirrors and smoke, coupled with altered terms, re-written definitions, select quotes, half-truths, and fluid contradictions. It can make you dizzy. Such is the nature of deception. :hypno:

RA

 

[TOmNossor]

Ashley and BDawg,
Have either of you read Deification and Grace by Daniel Keating.
I think Ashley has done very little to explain what a Catholic view of deification is. Asserting that CCC460 is true but not like Mormonism does little to tell us what CCC460 is like. Daniel Keating does not directly engage Mormonism so his explanation of Catholic deification is unencumbered by the RADICAL need to condemn LDS theology while saying Catholic theology “ain’t that.”

On the back cover we get this:

While often misunderstood in or eclipsed by various theological traditions of modern provenance, deification stands at the very center of the Christian faith and constitutes the surpassing goal toward which the Christian life is directed.

Here is a smattering of Biblical warrants for deification (built upon a restatement of the Patristic “exchange formula”) offered by Keating on page 28.

We are now in a position to return to the formula of exchange with greater clarity about what this expression means. By asserting that “the Son of God became the Son of Man, so that the sons of men might become the sons of God,” the Fathers were attempting to sum up the scriptural testimony concerning our redemption. Christ, by virtue of his divine-human constitution and by means of his saving action, is the center and locus of that redemption. He is the Second Adam who renews our nature in himself, thus inaugurating a new humanity, and breathes his Spirit into us, causing us to be adopted as sons and daughters of the Father. By means of the indwelling of God, we are set on a course in which we freely cooperate, to be conformed to the image of the Son (Rom 8:29). It is only in the life of the age to come that this transformation will be completed, and we shall see him as he is (1 Jn 3:2). This account of our redemption embraces the full expanse of the biblical narrative, from Adam to Christ, and the glory that awaits us in the new creation. It incorporates the victory of Christ over the enemies and ills that beset the human race: the power of indwelling sin, the slavery of the devil, and the curse of death on our nature. And it is both Christocentric and Trinitarian: The Father sends his Son in our fallen humanity, to redeem the human race and to win for us adoptive sonship through the Spirit.

Now, lest I misrepresent Keating, after powerfully arguing that a Catholic (and any Christian) simply must embrace deification, he makes a most remarkable retreat. He says that Christ participated in our humanity so that we might participate in His divinity, but that “to participate”/”to partake” in these Biblical and ECF passages have different meanings. Christ fully became human, be we are to derivatively become divine. I found his expression to be the most straight forward explanation of what MOST informed Catholics seem to be saying about this issue, but that it was quite remarkable in its willingness to put forth a very stilted argument. Christ fully partakes of our human nature such that He is fully human, but we derivatively partake the divine nature such that we retain our human nature. This is a most remarkable position IMO.

LDS simply do not believe that when Christ participates in our nature and we then participate in His nature that the words for “participate” (and “partake”) should be forced into different meanings because of a developed theology that we reject. Most informed Catholics it seems do require this stilted view of the exchange formula.

All that being said, Deification and Grace is an excellent book for the Catholic and the LDS. It does a wonderful job of laying out the Biblical and ECF warrant for deification. It also attempts to explain how the clear position of the Bible and the pre-Nicene ECF should not be viewed as multiplying the “divine nature.” I think it fails, but it was recommended to me by a Catholic so he must have thought highly of it.

Charity, TOm

 

[BDawg]

**RA: **You, as a Mormon, view God and man as being of the SAME eternal essence/nature (i.e., intelligence). THAT is the crux of why Mormonism’s becoming LIKE God is not the same as the Christian’s view of becoming LIKE God.

Hello Richard,

Of course. That’s consistent with what I said, isn’t it? I have no problem with anyone listing differences between what we believe, and what they believe. I just take issue when the differences are stated in such a way as to distort our beliefs. That’s what Ashley did.

We see it as an emulation and growth in our natures that make us reflect more of God’s communicable attributes. You see it as evolving into exactly what God as evolved into over eons of time. Your very definition of the nature of God is different than the Christian definition. We are NOT of the same species as God. So, please, do not equate our view of becoming LIKE God with your view of becoming LIKE God.

I thought I made it absolutely clear that there were areas of disagreement. Why are you acting as if you were arguing with me?

BDawg: Originally, Jews and Jewish Christians thought God the Father had a body in human form. . . . In the third century, Origen wrote that the Jews and some Christians believed that God had a body in human form, but he rejected this idea because the philosophers thought it was silly.

RA: Absolutely untrue. Stop it.

I’m not sure what you are saying is untrue. Are you saying that Origen and Christopher Stead were wrong about what the Jews of that time believed?

The Jews that YOU are referring to were occult Kabbalists who had drifted away from traditional Judaism and into the realm of pagan mystery religions that had influenced their thinking. Numerous texts had begun circulating among Jews, along with an oral tradition, that depicted God as a man in form.

And it was through shamanistic trances that such rabbis would seek to ascend through the realms of consciousness into the throne room of God to behold God in this form. And it was your Joseph Smith who based his views on Kabbalah. Again, we see the dark magickal, occult roots of Mormonism coming through.

Well, I guess we have to include the Bible among those Kabbalistic texts where people ascend to God’s throne room and see his human form. See Ezekiel 1, Exodus 30-33, Acts 7, Revelation 4.

In any case, here you seem to be saying that what I said was true–it’s just that the Jews of that time believed in a corrupted doctrine about God’s form.

The “Stop it” comment was really good, though. I miss my Mom.

RA: Thanks to FARMS/FAIR, Mormons have become very adept at ripping all kinds of quotes from the ECFs to use in support of their views. Very, very few Christians have the means to actually look these things up, and read them, or study them – and that is your ace in the hole.

Well, I read them. Are you saying I’m a liar, Mommy? Did Origen actually not make the claims I quoted, or did he mean something else by them? You know, some of those documents are online, so anyone can easily look them up. Please go check to see if I was quoting out of context.

Stead’s book would be in any university library, and it is still in print. It’s a great read.

 

[TOmNossor]

ASHLEY:

First… they do NOT teach deification. They teach theosis. Please do not try to muddy the difference, these are not interchangable ideas. [BDawg: Since “theosis” is the Greek word for “deification,” I have no problem using either. I’m not sure what you think the distinction is. Personally, I prefer sticking to English when possible.]

**RA: **You see how Mormons seek to confuse and confound by throwing these terms around? They can lead you down bunny trail after bunny trail and throw in all manner of mirrors and smoke, coupled with altered terms, re-written definitions, select quotes, half-truths, and fluid contradictions. It can make you dizzy. Such is the nature of deception.

RA
Richard,
Are you actually suggesting that it is LDS who are confusing the issue by saying deificaiton and theosis speak of the same concepts. Do you disagree with the statement that theosis is a Greek-ish term and Deification is a latin-ish term for the idea that men can become gods?

Let me say this again:
No ECF before Nicea when talking about human deification (human theosis / “men becoming gods”) placed any limits on the FINAL state of deified man. Instead, they along with modern LDS boldly stated that through the grace of Christ we would become gods. They did not say “but only in the communicable attributes.” After Nicea it became increasingly popular to state that there were limits upon what it meant for humans to become gods. In the West the language of deification became fairly infrequent. In the East, Gregory Palamas offered the energy vs. essence distinction (since theosis/deification was regularly discussed in the East). Many Catholics and Protestants have tried to follow Palamas. I guess a Protestant can do this (with no more inconsistency than they follow Catholics whose authority they reject), but the Catholic IMO is largely committed to the beautific vision that includes energy AND ESSENCE. I would suggest that Catholic who embraces the essence/energy distinction in their view of deification has departed from Western Tradition (at the very least from Western tradition).

Charity, TOm

 

[BDawg]

**RA: **You see how Mormons seek to confuse and confound by throwing these terms around? They can lead you down bunny trail after bunny trail and throw in all manner of mirrors and smoke, coupled with altered terms, re-written definitions, select quotes, half-truths, and fluid contradictions. It can make you dizzy. Such is the nature of deception. :hypno:

Hello, Richard.

“Deification” is an English word that means the exact same thing as the Greek word “theosis.” I thought that was a fairly clear explanation. What was it about my explanation that was so confusing to you?

From my point of view, it seemed like Ashley was the one trying to muddy the waters by throwing around terms she didn’t understand. I.e., she claimed that two synonyms express completely different meanings.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

BDawg and Nosser,

I think the issue is use of the same term with a different meaning. It makes people uneasy and, tbh, not very happy. And it suggests deception and a disingenuous spirit. That’s all I’m saying.

The LDS party line is (and correct me if I am wrong): LDS deification/exaltation is virtually the same concept of *theosis *as taught by the ECF. That is what I have read from LDS sources.

If that is the argument, it is false. That is my point. And that is the point others here seem to be trying to make with you.

As for a man in form, what I am saying is that the concept of Jews is of LATE origin, non-Jewish, and occult in origin.

**BDawg: **Well, I guess we have to include the Bible among those Kabbalistic texts where people ascend to God’s throne room and see his human form. See Ezekiel 1, Exodus 30-33, Acts 7, Revelation 4.

RA: Ahhhhh, spoken like a true Kabbalist.

I assume you have the *Sefirot *and *Zohar *nearby. Is there any way you can get me Madonna’s autograph?

Maybe if you have a copy of the Sefir Yesirah, you can create a Golem!

But the Hekhlot, of course, is the one you want if you are going to attempt to ascend via trances like Ezekiel into God’s thrown room. And, FYI, traditional Jews who rejected Kabbalah understood the *Merkabah *visions as anthropomorphic.

BdawG: I miss my Mom…

RA: Sometimes that’s all that works.

BDawg: Well, I read them. Are you saying I’m a liar, Mommy?

**RA: **You misunderstood me. I was referring to the concept as being accepted by doctrinally sound Christians and traditional non-Kabbalistic Jews.

R.A.

 

[TOmNossor]

I think the issue is use of the same term with a different meaning. It makes people uneasy and, tbh, not very happy. And it suggests deception and a disingenuous spirit. That’s all I’m saying.

I would suggest it is remarkable for you to say there is a “disingenuous spirit” while acknowledging that it is yours and/or others ignorance of the meaning of the words that creates the conflict.
You IMO deal very little with the arguments presented and instead offer things like “you speak with ‘deception and a disingenuous spirit’” It is unfortunate IMO that folks think such substitutes for substantive comments. I recognize you do not desire to be serious enough to address these issues, but your repeated belittling should be viewed as a negative for your POV. I hope people recognize this.

The LDS party line is (and correct me if I am wrong): LDS deification/exaltation is virtually the same concept of *theosis *

as taught by the ECF. That is what I have read from LDS sources.

If that is the argument, it is false. That is my point. And that is the point others here seem to be trying to make with you.
Actually, BDawg and I both offered differences between the ECF view of deification and the LDS view of deification (as did former Catholic priest Vajda).

Now, what I do say is that your limits upon deification are NOT evidenced in pre-Nicene ECF. Here is what I said to you again (with bolding)

TOmNossor:
No ECF before Nicea when talking about human deification (human theosis / “men becoming gods”) placed any limits on the FINAL state of deified man. Instead, they along with modern LDS boldly stated that through the grace of Christ we would become gods. They did not say “but only in the communicable attributes.” After Nicea it became increasingly popular to state that there were limits upon what it meant for humans to become gods.

So, while there are differences in the LDS and the ECF views, I do believe that the LDS are closer to the pre-Nicea ECF view on the FINAL state of deified man than are most Catholics and Protestants (including you and Ashley).
Perhaps you would care to dispute the bolded section of the above?

And as BDawg and I both pointed out, the believe in creation ex nihilo is a developed doctrine in the opinion of many non-LDS scholars (and most Biblical scholars do not believe it is explicitly Biblical). IMO this is the biggest difference between the LDS and the 160-325AD ECF view of deification.

Charity, TOm

 

[Richard_Abanes]

**T: **I would suggest it is remarkable for you to say there is a “disingenuous spirit” while acknowledging that it is yours and/or others ignorance of the meaning of the words that creates the conflict.

RA: Whatever Tom, right. It’s always us who are so ignorant. The RCC and the EO who inherited teh very term theosis don’t know nything about what they’re talking about. Stop hi-jacking words like theosis in an effort to justify Smith’s heresy. Sorry. That’s the truth.

T: You IMO deal very little with the arguments presented and instead offer things like “you speak with ‘deception and a disingenuous spirit’”

**RA:**Is this actually what I said? No. I stated: “I think the issue is use of the same term with a different meaning. It makes people uneasy and, tbh, not very happy.” Then, I expressed why: “it SUGGESTS deception and a disingenuous spirit.” I did not say, what you so easily changed to: “you speak with ‘deception and a disingenuous spirit’” – check those quotes Tom. Where’d you put em.

**T: **So, while there are differences in the LDS and the ECF views, I do believe that the LDS are closer to the pre-Nicea ECF view on the FINAL state of deified man than are most Catholics and Protestants (including you and Ashley). Perhaps you would care to dispute the bolded section of the above?

RA: What I’d like to dispute is what your General Authorities say, because they are the ones setting your doctrine and policy. So, please let’s stick to GA quotes and statements on doctrine. You may begin quoting at your ready.

This rules out your own opinion, FAIR, FARMS, and any other lay apologist. Let’s deal with OFFICIAL doctrine from your Prophets & Apostles. Okay? Otherwise, well, really Tom, why would we be talking at all about something that is not official doctrine of the LDS Church. That would be so unfair.

Whatever is not official LDS doctrine from GAs is pure speculation not worth the band-width.

peace-out,

RA

 

[AshleyBelle]

So let’s say that we’re all meant to become “gods.”

I thought Adam and Eve, at the beginning of creation, before sin entered the world, were created EXACTLY as God intends for us all to be, correct?

So…if they were already as God intended them… why would satan tempt them to become gods? Wouldn’t they have already BEEN gods?

And you can try to tell us that the catholic notion of theosis is just like the mormon idea of deification, but you fail to accept that it IS.NOT.THE.SAME.

You cannot apply your mormon ideas to Catholic principals, because they were written and interpretted from a Catholic perspective.

And of course it all comes down to authority. Catholic teaching comes directly from the apostles.

Mormon teaching comes from … ?

 

[Snow]

I state facts, that you see them as insults?

Let’s just see if that is true (it’s false - but let’s look anyway).

You said: “You marginalize yourselves, in everything you say about Christianity.”

I said it’s an insult. You claim it is a fact. Facts are the very simplest thing to prove. Prove that is a fact, not an insult.

Prediction: You won’t.

Can I find anything correct about what you posted would be a better, short question with a nice short answer. No.

Let’s put that to the test. I said that homoousious was not found in the NT and got into the Nicene Creed via a Constantine, who was not even a baptized Christian.

Refute it is you can.

Prediction: You won’t and can’t.

Again? Perhaps you think you are the only Mormon to come sauntering around a non-Mormon community, telling us how our doctrines our false and our belief in God is based on philosophy?

Use the search function.

That doesn’t even make sense. Check what you were responding to.

Context=the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Churches. Corruption=Mormonism?

Tsk, tsk, tsk. You were challenged to demonstrate that I took the quotes out of context. I re-challenge you.

Prediction: You can’t.

Please. Your entire POV is Mormon, are you saying that it is not?

Not a rebuttal. Demonstrate it.

You think I am insulting you personally? Not my intent. Truth is truth, and you seek to destroy it with false assertions and made up religion. It’s a denigration of all of Christianity.

You love those insults. They are a poor excuse for intelligent discussion.

I guess we’d have to define LSD doctrine first, which, is an impossibility. You can believe whatever you like as long as you speak nicely of your prophet.

No, no, no. You made an accusation. Don’t back off of it now. Back up your accusation (which was, we both know, false)

Prediction: You can’t.

Mormons like yourself seek to prove that Christianity is Mormon. You used to just state, “great apostasy”, and point at our Credo and priests and tell us how corrupt they are. Now, you are trying to change our history. To Mormonize it

False accusation. I don’t seek to prove that Christianity is Mormon. That doesn’t even make sense. It’s a simple math/logic problem. Nor have I said your priests are corrupt. Nor have I tried to change your history.

That’s like three false accusations in one.

I challenge you to back up your (false) accusations with fact but comfortably predict you won’t and can’t.

 

[Snow]

Prior to Nicea, what latter became Trinitarian doctrine was NOT the widespread proto-orthodox view.

Really?

Here’s something you are about to learn: I will never purposely make a false statement and that which I claim, I can support. Note: I challenge you to do the same:

“‘Subordinationism’, it is true, was pre-Nicean orthodoxy.” [Henry Bettenson, editor and translator, The Early Christian Fathers:A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius, (Oxford University Press: 1969), 239.]

Not an LDS source

“Writers who are usually reckoned orthodox but who lived a century or two centuries before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian and Novatian and Justin Martyr, held some views which would later, in the fourth century, have been branded heretical…Irenaeus and Tertullian both believed that God had not always been a Trinity but had at some point put forth the Son and the Spirit so as to be distinct from him. Tertullian, borrowing from Stoicism, believed that God was material (though only of a very refined material, a kind of thinking gas), so that his statement that Father, Son and Spirit were ‘of one substance’, beautifully orthodox though it sounds, was of a corporeality which would have profoundly shocked Origen, Athanasius and the Cappadocian theologians, had they known of it” [RPC Hansen, “The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD”, in Rowan Williams, editor, The Making of Orthodoxy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 151–152.]

Not an LDS source

“It [subordinationism] is a characteristic tendency in much Christian teaching of the first three centuries, and is a marked feature of such otherwise orthodox Fathers as St. Justin and Origen…Where the doctrine [of the Trinity] was elaborated, as e.g. in the writing of the Apologists, the language remained on the whole indefinite, and, from a later standpoint, was even partly unorthodox. Sometimes it was not free from a certain subordinationism.” [FL Cross and EA Livingston, editors, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd edition, (London: Oxford University Press, 1974), 1319, 1394.]

Not an LDS source

Refute it if you can.

btw… there’s lots more.

You are asserting that Tertullian is a Mormon.

You just made that up and we both know it is false.

Please don’t make up more things and falsely attribute them to me,

 

[TOmNossor]

**T: **

I would suggest it is remarkable for you to say there is a “disingenuous spirit” while acknowledging that it is yours and/or others ignorance of the meaning of the words that creates the conflict.

**RA:**Whatever Tom, right. It’s always us who are so ignorant. The RCC and the EO who inherited teh very term theosis don’t know nything about what they’re talking about. Stop hi-jacking words like theosis in an effort to justify Smith’s heresy. Sorry. That’s the truth.

I seldom use the term “theosis,” but it was Ashley who suggested that “theosis and deification” have different meanings. BDawg and I said that these are largely the same word with different lineage. You did not dispute this but said that our use of the word “suggests” negative things.

check those quotes Tom. Where’d you put em.

I said you said things LIKE “… ‘…’” It was not my intention to say I was directly quote you in my “” rather than in my ‘’.
I would suggest that to say our use of words that Ashley and you do not understand SUGGEST dishonesty is not significantly better. Again, it was Ashley who proclaimed that theosis and deification were not the same thing. Perhaps she meant that developed Catholic doctrine and LDS doctrine are not the same thing, but in response to BDawg’s comment you said …

**T: **So, while there are differences in the LDS and the ECF views, I do believe that the LDS are closer to the pre-Nicea ECF view on the FINAL state of deified man than are most Catholics and Protestants (including you and Ashley). Perhaps you would care to dispute the bolded section of the above?

RA: What I’d like to dispute is what your General Authorities say, because they are the ones setting your doctrine and policy. So, please let’s stick to GA quotes and statements on doctrine. You may begin quoting at your ready.

This rules out your own opinion, FAIR, FARMS, and any other lay apologist. Let’s deal with OFFICIAL doctrine from your Prophets & Apostles. Okay? Otherwise, well, really Tom, why would we be talking at all about something that is not official doctrine of the LDS Church. That would be so unfair.

Whatever is not official LDS doctrine from GAs is pure speculation not worth the band-width.

“Official LDS doctrine” as you have REPEATEDLY been told is contained in the LDS standard works. You have been told by LDS and non-LDS that you misrepresent our beliefs when you insist that we conform to your understanding of statements by former LDS.
You reject a religion I do not hold. I do the best I can to understand the religion that you hold and the religion that Catholics hold and determine if it make better sense of the data than the religion that I hold. I am quite convinced that it does.
Your refusal to deal with the CoJCoLDS as defined by folks who take the time to use precise language and attempt to understand the difference between our faiths is further evidence that you do not have a case against the faith I embrace.

So, I will say again:
No ECF before Nicea when talking about human deification (human theosis / “men becoming gods”) placed any limits on the FINAL state of deified man. Instead, they along with modern LDS boldly stated that through the grace of Christ we would become gods. They did not say “but only in the communicable attributes.” After Nicea it became increasingly popular to state that there were limits upon what it meant for humans to become gods.

If the above is true, and I have found no reason (nor do you offer any) to believe it is not, then the view I hold is closer to the view held by the ECF than the view you and Ashley hold. I really do not care if you do not think the view I hold is Mormon enough for you. I am the world authority on what I believe, and as a LDS I am quite positive my view is Mormon enough.

So, you can deal with the quote above or not. If it is true, then I think there is a problem with your limited deification view AND I think LDS are well justified in claiming that the ECF embraced a form of deification closer to the LDS view than to the non-LDS view espoused by most critics (that is by most critics who are even aware of the truth of the statement, “men can become gods.”).

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

So let’s say that we’re all meant to become “gods.”

I thought Adam and Eve, at the beginning of creation, before sin entered the world, were created EXACTLY as God intends for us all to be, correct?

So…if they were already as God intended them… why would satan tempt them to become gods? Wouldn’t they have already BEEN gods?
Certainly not in LDS thought and I do not think in Catholic thought either. I would need to review what Keating said on this, but I doubt he would accept it either.
If Adam and Eve pre-fall are absolutely equivalent to post-resurrection humanity this introduces a volume of problems for Catholicism IMO. Certainly Catholic philosophers will reject this idea.
So, the LDS does not believe that Adam and Eve pre-fall is the same as deified humans. I really do not think any Catholic theologian believes Adam and Eve pre-fall are the same as Saints in heaven either. Are you sure you want to assert this?

And you can try to tell us that the catholic notion of theosis is just like the mormon idea of deification, but you fail to accept that it IS.NOT.THE.SAME.

You cannot apply your mormon ideas to Catholic principals, because they were written and interpretted from a Catholic perspective.

And of course it all comes down to authority. Catholic teaching comes directly from the apostles.

Mormon teaching comes from … ?
Hmmm!
Ok, Catholic theosis and LDS deification are not the same.
Catholics claim to be the inheritors of apostolic truth though DEVELOPED doctrine.
LDS claim to be the inheritors of apostolic truth through RESTORED doctrine.
We are not both correct!!!

That being said, deification and theosis are the both words for the idea that “men can become gods.”

And as I keep saying, while I have acknowledged difference between the beliefs of post 160AD ECF and LDS with respect to the starting point for humans (ie either creation ex nihilo or not creation ex nihilo), the LDS view of the final state of deified humans is more similar to the ECF (between 160AD and 325AD) than to a limited view of theosis espoused by most Catholics and Catholic scholars.
So:
No ECF before Nicea when talking about human deification (human theosis / “men becoming gods”) placed any limits on the FINAL state of deified man. Instead, they along with modern LDS boldly stated that through the grace of Christ we would become gods. They did not say “but only in the communicable attributes.” After Nicea it became increasingly popular to state that there were limits upon what it meant for humans to become gods.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

RebeccaJ;4365018:

Prior to Nicea, what latter became Trinitarian doctrine was NOT the widespread proto-orthodox view.

Really?

Here’s something you are about to learn: I will never purposely make a false statement and that which I claim, I can support. Note: I challenge you to do the same:

“‘Subordinationism’, it is true, was pre-Nicean orthodoxy.” [Henry Bettenson, editor and translator, The Early Christian Fathers:A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius, (Oxford University Press: 1969), 239.]

Not an LDS source

“Writers who are usually reckoned orthodox but who lived a century or two centuries before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian and Novatian and Justin Martyr, held some views which would later, in the fourth century, have been branded heretical…Irenaeus and Tertullian both believed that God had not always been a Trinity but had at some point put forth the Son and the Spirit so as to be distinct from him. Tertullian, borrowing from Stoicism, believed that God was material (though only of a very refined material, a kind of thinking gas), so that his statement that Father, Son and Spirit were ‘of one substance’, beautifully orthodox though it sounds, was of a corporeality which would have profoundly shocked Origen, Athanasius and the Cappadocian theologians, had they known of it” [RPC Hansen, “The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD”, in Rowan Williams, editor, The Making of Orthodoxy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 151–152.]

Not an LDS source

“It [subordinationism] is a characteristic tendency in much Christian teaching of the first three centuries, and is a marked feature of such otherwise orthodox Fathers as St. Justin and Origen…Where the doctrine [of the Trinity] was elaborated, as e.g. in the writing of the Apologists, the language remained on the whole indefinite, and, from a later standpoint, was even partly unorthodox. Sometimes it was not free from a certain subordinationism.” [FL Cross and EA Livingston, editors, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd edition, (London: Oxford University Press, 1974), 1319, 1394.]

Snow,
Subordination is pre-Nicene orthodoxy. My Catholic friend has been blogging about this recently. You seem to be quite knowledgeable, but here is a post and an essay:
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/06/trinity-and-development-of-doctrine.html
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/10/subordinationism-in-st-irenaeus.html

Now, IMO the Catholic must accept “doctrinal development” to account for this virtually universal subordinationist view point (the modalists were of course not subordinationalists). I think this is a bigger problem for the Protestant who does not believe ordained authority guided the first 4 councils of the church than it is for the Catholic. Still, I am continually amazed at how most Catholics (including CA Apologist) almost demand that the ECF were orthodox in their Trinity / Christology / Deification views / and …. It makes me wonder if Cardinal Newman really was a heretic like Orestas Bronson believed or if a Catholic can embrace Newman Development of Doctrine. Of course if the Catholic cannot recognize development of doctrine they are done. History disproves the Catholic Church.

Charity, TOm

 

[Richard_Abanes]

T: “Official LDS doctrine” as you have REPEATEDLY been told is contained in the LDS standard works.

RA: Well, that’s what i keep saying. I stick to the Standard Works and authoritative quotes. But apparently FARMS/FAIR think differently since now they are pulling in all kinds of other sources like the ECF (and their own arguments) that are found nowhere in the Standard Works. (And, besides, Heavenly Mother is in none of the Standard Works, and you believe in her.)

T: You have been told by LDS and non-LDS that you misrepresent our beliefs when you insist that we conform to your understanding of statements by former LDS.

**RA: **That’s what I’ve been told, but that’s because what you and others have done is ignore how the people of the time understood those statements, and have decieded to put your own 21st century spin on those statements. You do it and in some cases even your GAs doing it in complete dismissal of how the Latter-day Saints of the past eras interpreted the statements as they heard them and embraced them.

T: You reject a religion I do not hold.

**RA: **Then you reject the religion of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and your other spiritual ancestors. Let’s get an official pronouncement from a GA somewhere and we can all be on the same page once and for all.

**T: **Your refusal to deal with the CoJCoLDS as defined by folks who take the time to use precise language and attempt to understand the difference between our faiths is further evidence that you do not have a case against the faith I embrace.

RA: I am sticking with what is official – not with what come sout of BYU or some LDS message board somewhere by people who are trying desperately to reconcile what they are seeing as false in their Chruch’s history with what they are personally believing. You know tehre is a split between Internet Mormons and Chapel Mormons.

T: No ECF before Nicea when talking about human deification (human theosis / “men becoming gods”) placed any limits on the FINAL state of deified man. Instead, they along with modern LDS boldly stated that through the grace of Christ we would become gods.

RA: Well, the Catholics disagree. The EO disagree. And I disagree. So, well, there you go.

My goodness, Tom, this is not so difficult. Without even getting all scholarly, all you have to do is go to WIKI:

“Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis: it is not possible for any created being to become (ontologically) God, or even part of God (the henosis of Greek Neoplatonic philosophy).”

And a link to the orthodox view was already posted:

“The Mormons’ belief differs with the Orthodox belief in deification because the Latter-Day Saints believe that the core being of each individual, the “intelligence” which existed before becoming a spirit son or daughter, is uncreated or eternal. Orthodox deification always acknowledges a timeless Creator versus a finite creature who has been glorified by the grace of God. The Mormons are clear promoters of henotheism, and the Church Fathers have absolutely no commonality with their view.”

I mean the information, arguments, reason, logic, and history is there. You don’t choose to accept it. Fine.

Again, the Catholics disagree. The EO disagree. I disagree. And Protestantism disagrees.

You Mormons seem to be in a God-making universe of your own, where you set aside the foundational monotheism of the ECFs, which is KEY to understanding theosis, so can can turn around and say, “Oh, but see, we don’t have them setting any limits per se with those exact words.”

Well, they didn’t have to – because they all knew there was only one God! They didn’t have Mormons running around saying they could all become gods.

RA

 

[mfbukowski]

They are a measure of one’s closeness to God, not a consequence of it. Doing good is its own reward.

Well of course you are right, but one cannot be close to God and be a murderer rapist, etc. The motivation to be good is so that one can be closer to God for me. But if you are saying that one goes to the celestial kingdom as opposed to another kingdom because one is closer to God than another, it amounts to the same thing. The motivation is different, but the results are the same.

If you are close to God, you are good, and you go to the celestial kingdom.

If you are none of the above, you go somewhere else. And so babies go the celestial kingdome because they are close to God. I have no problem with that. But it just seems like a semantic thing to not call it a “reward”.

But I’m ok with it- and I understand that “being good for a reward” is very different that being good for the pure love of Christ. Big difference. Is that your point?

 

[AshleyBelle]

Just an observation…

But it seems to me that with all this discussion of “deification” and “reward” that mormonism is lacking the central, underlying theme and primary teaching of Christ. Not only Christ, but the message God has been impressing upon us from the beginning of time…

Where is LOVE in all of this? Where is the self sacrificing, self giving, humble and pure love that our Father asks of us?

 

[TOmNossor]

T:

No ECF before Nicea when talking about human deification (human theosis / “men becoming gods”) placed any limits on the FINAL state of deified man. Instead, they along with modern LDS boldly stated that through the grace of Christ we would become gods.

RA: Well, the Catholics disagree. The EO disagree. And I disagree. So, well, there you go.

My goodness, Tom, this is not so difficult. Without even getting all scholarly, all you have to do is go to WIKI:
“Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis: it is not possible for any created being to become (ontologically) God, or even part of God (the henosis of Greek Neoplatonic philosophy).”
And a link to the orthodox view was already posted:
“The Mormons’ belief differs with the Orthodox belief in deification because the Latter-Day Saints believe that the core being of each individual, the “intelligence” which existed before becoming a spirit son or daughter, is uncreated or eternal. Orthodox deification always acknowledges a timeless Creator versus a finite creature who has been glorified by the grace of God. The Mormons are clear promoters of henotheism, and the Church Fathers have absolutely no commonality with their view.”
I mean the information, arguments, reason, logic, and history is there. You don’t choose to accept it. Fine.

Again, the Catholics disagree. The EO disagree. I disagree. And Protestantism disagrees.

I am not sure how you failed to read what I said. I claimed that NO ECF befire Nicea placed limits upon the final state of deified men.
You offered a couple of wikipedia quotes one that mentioned Mormons. Those quotes are not from ECF.

Can you admit that the following is true to the best of your understanding?:
No ECF before Nicea when talking about human deification (human theosis / “men becoming gods”) placed any limits on the FINAL state of deified man. Instead, they along with modern LDS boldly stated that through the grace of Christ we would become gods. They did not say “but only in the communicable attributes.” After Nicea it became increasingly popular to state that there were limits upon what it meant for humans to become gods.

Quotes written on the internet will not address the statement I made even if you think logic is on your side.

The Bible and LDS recognize that God is one. I have specifically claimed to embrace monotheistic deification. What is also absolutely true (and relevant here) is the following.

The Bible does not teach –ousia based oneness and divinity. The deification views espoused by the ECF before Nicea came from the apostolic witness which did not include –ousia based oneness and divinity. As the ECF struggled to define how Christ was divine and God was one, they came up with -ousia based oneness and divinity. After this dogmatic assertion Athanasius and Augustine and others began to limit the final state of deified man in accordance with their commitment to -ousia based oneness and divinity.

So, your logic works if the oneness of God and divinity is based upon -ousia based oneness and divinity. However, before Nicea ALL ECF who spoke of deification did not limit the final state of deified man because they were speaking of deification as the Bible and the Apostles taught it. As the idea of -ousia based oneness and divinity developed the logic you assert became clear and ECF began to limit the final state of deified men. That being said, NOBODY placed limits on the final state of deified men before Nicea.

If your logic is flawless, what it means is that the developed idea of God’s oneness and divinity precludes the view expressed by pre-Nicene ECF and LDS. I generally agree with you except in that I think there is so much that is just “mystery” or “illogical” that there is no reason for the non-LDS to reject the witness of the earliest ECF in favor of logic here.
As a Catholic I would embrace these three things:

• God the Son is homoousian with God the Father in His divinity.
• God the Son is homoousian in His humanity with mankind.
• Mankind may become homoousian with God (Father and Son) in his future deified state becoming gods via grace. This will result in man having a duel nature like Christ.

Charity, TOm