ViaCrucis: "It is entirely erroneous to attempt to draw from the ancient fathers and the historic Christian teaching of theosis and use it to promulgate the LDS doctrine of exaltation. It is at best sincere ignorance or at worst insincere disingenuousness. Theosis is not apotheosis."
Response: Did you miss this part of my post, 977: "Note there are verbal parallels to this comment [those made by LDS Prophet Lorenzo Snow], & those found in early to later Christianity. However,
to clarify, those are verbal parallels that need to be contrasted in each example of the Christian proverb, doctrine & saying: Christ, the Word, became man so man can become God(s). Or as worded in other sources mentioned: God became man so man can become god(s). Let's be clear here & fair, each statement that repeats this phrase,
has to be considered in their historical settings." I could add further observations to show the
contrasting of differences that my fellow LDS Apologists & researchers have done to make sure our readers are noting that the LDS version of deification, called exaltation, is not exactly like many early Christians' versions, for there are many different versions of deification in early Christianity. We have been acknowledging the differences for years now, in writing, on radio shows, in books, debates, etc. Thus,
no "erroneous" attempt has been made
here in my posts "to draw from the ancient fathers and historic Christian teaching of theosis and use it to promulgate the LDS doctrine of exaltation." The LDS testify to there being a restoration of the beliefs, as restored through modern prophets & apostles. That new revelation clarified what had become corrupted through the centuries during the Great Apostasy. For us to say this, means that we would have to point out differences, contrasts, while also noting the credit due to those who sought to preserve many aspects of the doctrine. The LDS prophets & apostles have taken the beliefs far beyond what early Christians have expounded on, because of new revelations & speculations on those revelations in commentaries & talks given. So there are going to be some differences created there, because further insights that have come through the restoration.
Not paying attention to LDS apologists that have pointed out differences, the charge continues to be made that LDS don't see differences, or acknowledge them, when infact we have. During a debate, Kurt Van Gorden of the Christian panel, charged & claimed that the statements from the early Fathers were "taken out of context." (Kurt Van Gorden,
Can Man Progress To Godhood? (1992): “In recent years I have noticed a number of articles in Mormon literature concerning the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of deification, derived from the Greek term theosis. There are two logical linguistic fallacies the Mormon writers have committed concerning their use of Eastern Orthodox citations. First, they commit the fallacy of equivocation, pretending that the early Church fathers meant the same thing the Mormons do when they use similar terms. Second, they commit the fallacy of vicious abstraction, that is, the removal of a statement from its context and the changing of its argument.”(
Mission Monthly Vol.12, #11, p.16-17). In response to these charges & claims: I wish Mr. Gorden heard the radios shows on KZZI 1510 AM radio in West Jordan, Utah, for during
Out of the Best Books, where Darell Thorpe & Van Hale on a guest several times during 1987--1988, not only talked about the many parallels between Mormonism and early Christianity, but we also acknowledged and talked about the many diversities and differences too. Even in Gorden’s citation from Van Hale’s Note Cards, is an indication that there were a lot of things that, for example Tertullian wrote that LDS wouldn’t agree with. This, in and of itself suggests that Van Hale was
noting differences, and that not every thing that the early Christians wrote is exactly what Mormons believe. Kurt Van Gorden, Christian apologist, in his
Can Man Progress To Godhood? 1992, now on the Internet, and which is derived from a transcript of a debate held in California between LDS Apologists Van Hale and Bill Forrest, charged that: “Several Mormon writers have attempted to quote early Church fathers to support their doctrine of man progressing to godhood.
B. H. Roberts, Hugh Nibley, Keith Norman, Philip Barlow, Steven Robinson, and Van Hale are a few who have popularized this method of association. The whole system crumbles on two accounts: equivocation of terms and taking statements out of context. “Two typical examples are quotes from Tertullian and Origen. Van Hale uses both of these in his note cards (#227 and #348). His introduction states, Eternal Progression deification (Tertullian, 145‑220 A.D.) Source: "Against Hermongenes," chap. 5, Ante‑Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1978) 3:480. The following is one of several statements by Tertullian expressing a view quite widely held by early Christians that man has the potential of becoming gods. This is part of his treatise against Hermogenes whom Tertullian believed to be a heretic. His interpretation of the 2 verses from Psalms was also common.
While he and the LDS would disagree on many points, on this point there seems to be
considerable agreement.” (Van Hale’s
Mormon Miscellaneous, Note Cards, italics added).
Sunday evening, April 5th, 1992, on KTKK,
K-TALK radio, 630 AM, in Utah. Martin Tanner (as Host), Van Hale (Guest) [PMD]s, & James White, "Christian" Calvinist, discussed the subject of deification in Mormonism & early Christianity. Both sides presented their reasons for their positions. Different Historians were cited from, a few examples were given from early Christian Fathers. Each rival side was unable to convince the opposing side of their own positions. Martin Tanner & Van Hale seemed to be more willing to set aside their biased look at history
by admitting that early Christianity was not exactly like Mormonism is today. That there are
differences of opinions & interpretations among the early Christian sects. But they also showed, by citing from a few examples, in many that they could have given, that there is some parallels between the early Christian beliefs & Mormonism, with regard to the doctrine of deification.
During the 1990s Martin Tanner also had Dr. Rick and Peterson as guest on his radio show, during which the similarities and differences about deification in the early Christian Fathers and the LDS version of deification were discussed, among other things, when they talked about their book
Offenders For A Word, and responded to calls into the show
Religion On The Line. Matthew Roper, “Mat” Roper, on 1230 AM radio, during the 1990's,
also acknowledged differences and similarities between the early Christian Fathers’ versions of deification and the LDS version of deification, as he presented, a number of times, shows about deification, and responded to different callers into his show.
Keith Norman,
Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology. Ph.D. diss., Duke Un., 1980. He admits that Athanasian versions of deification are different to LDS' versions. This was during a discussion that took place at the Sun Stone Symposiums, about 1991, the one that Norman spoke at. Norman acknowledge the fact that Athanasius’ version of deification and statements that ‘Christ became man so we can learn from him how to become Gods,’ these types of statements repeated throughout Athanasius’ writings, shouldn’t to be interpreted as meaning the same exact things as the LDS Prophet, Lorenzo Snows’ statement, even though they
sound similar. Kurt Van Gordan, however puts Keith Norman and Philip Barlow in with his list, even though he later quotes from Philip Barlow who also acknowledged differences too! In the
Zion’s Lighthouse posts: 20, dated 10-24-2000, Dr. Daniel C. Peterson notes how Dr. Keith Norman’s dissertation about Athanasius’s version of deification continues to be abused by critics who continue to claim that LDS scholars, and Apologists
haven’t been noting or acknowledging differences between many of the Church Fathers’ versions of deification, and the LDS’ restored version. Hence he wrote, in response to the Christian apologist, and anti-Mormon “Christian” DeMura that: “The quotation from Dr. Norman’s dissertation -- lifted, I presume, from James R. White, “Is the Mormon My Brother?” p. 253, note 51-- does not strike me as at all fatal or even dangerous to the Latter-day Saint position. Certainly it did not strike Dr. Norman as such, (a) since he chose the subject of his dissertation because of its interest to him as a Latter-day Saint. . . since he himself published a short article in “Sunstone” years ago based on his dissertation. . . . Incidently, in the quotation from Dr. Norman’s dissertation that, in Mr. White’s book, follows immediately on the heels of the quotation borrowed by Mr. DeMura, Dr. Norman explains that Athanasius’s objection to ontological equality between God and deified man rests upon Athanasius’s belief in creation ex nihilo. It should be kept in mind that Dr. Norman has argued, in print, that the doctrine of creation ex nihilo is post-biblical -- which certainly seems to imply that he would reject Athanasius’s objection, based upon the post-biblical doctrine, as biblically baseless.” (Dr. Daniel C. Peterson’s posting on the Internet at
Zion’s Lighthouse, posts: 20, dated 10-24-2000, reply to DeMura’s Claim that Peterson Decontextualizes ECF Early Christian Fathers, pp. 13--14; Keith Edward Norman,
Deification: The Content Of Athanasian Soteriology, Dept. of Religion, Duke University, 1980, His thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy; Norman,
Sunstone Magazine, Winter 1975, article entitled:
Divinization: The Forgotten Teaching of Early Christianity.).
Christian Apologist, and anti-Mormon “Christian” Kurt Van Gordon includes Keith Norman in with his list, along with Philip Barlow, later cited by Gordan: “Many of these Mormon writers assume that the Church father meant the same thing with their terms as what Mormons do. One Mormon writer, for example, who was evidently disturbed that this was going on, cautioned Mormons to be careful about using quotes on deification and theosis.
Philip Barlow said, "There is obviously a sense in which the various deification allusions here considered have only verbal similarities to Mormon understandings of exaltation.
I therefore do not wish to be misunderstood as implying that any or all of the thinkers referred to herein thought of theosis just as the Mormons do." (Kurt Van Gordon,
Can Man Progress To Godhood? 1992, citing Philip Barlow). In Gordan’s list is also Dr. Hugh Nibley, he also has noted differences and even mentioned how some of the early Christians versions of deification included the idea that in being deified, eventually they wouldn’t have any need for a body in the eternities to come. Certainly Mormons wouldn’t agree with Origen and other Fathers who taught that God the Father didn’t have a body of flesh and bones, like Christ does, although Christ’s body is now glorified and perfected in the resurrection. Hence, Mormons would perhaps agree that mankind can be perfected. But they would
disagree with Origen when he says that
God the Father is "incorporeal". And as noted earlier, many Mormons wouldn’t disagree with the Origen's views, (which seem to have been a results of platonic hellenizational influences of the schools), that in the eternities "
bodies will be dispensed with". And that we are to think of the "Trinity alone as existing incorporeally." And so it seems that while Origen was defending the bodily birth of Christ, & the resurrection of the body against the attacks of Celsus. Origen may have had difficulties with coming to grips with the doctrine from time to time, in light of his schooling. And because the doctrine was fast becoming more and more unpopular with many hellenized Christians, who must have also labored with it too. However, despite this, & other things in Origen's writings which Mormons would not agree with, we still see a rich support for deification in Origen defense against Celsus.
The Ante-Nicene Father, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; T & T Clark, Edinburgh, reprinted, May 1989), in 10 volumes, see vol. 4, pp. 241—249,Origen, A.D. 185-230-254,
Origen De Principiis, Preface 8—10; Book 1, chapter 1; chapter 2; Huge Nibley’s 1953 radio show series on KSL in Salt Lake City, Utah, entitled:
Time Vindicates The Prophets, later published in the series,
The Collected Works of Huge Nibley, see volume 3. See also:Lenet H. Read’s series of articles:
How the Bible Came to Be, published in
The Ensign, (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1982), series ran from January 1982 through September 1982, see: Part 4:
The Canon Becomes an Unread Relic, see:
The Ensign, April 1982, pp. 45 & 48, see notes 17 & 18. Fred Gladstone Batton,
A History of the Bible (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969), pp. 290—293).
Hence, it seems that anti-Mormon “Christian” apologists have either continued to suppress the fact that LDS Apologists, and Scholars have continually noted, written about, talked about, and published the fact that they have also noted that
the LDS’ version of deification, and statements that have been made by a number of early Christian Fathers, which sound similar, are to be considered in light of what the same early Christians also had to say about what God, Christ and the Godhead were like. Hence, the different versions would then be based on what type of “god” they were becoming, in becoming “God” or “gods,” for it would thus be based on how they understood God, Christ, or the Godhead to be like.
Darell Thorpe, radio talk show host on KZZI 1510 AM Radio in West Jordan, Utah, during 1987--1988, had Van Hale on a guest a number of times, to talk about the similarities and to acknowledge and talk about the differences between LDS beliefs and the early Christian Fathers, but also talk about the similarities between early anti-Christian writers and modern anti-Mormon “Christian” writings too. (
Out of the Best Books, 1987--1988,
KZZI 1510 AM Radio, West Jordan, Utah).
In recent years, the same types of charges have been claimed against Dr. Daniel C. Peterson, LDS Apologist, Scholar with Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, FARMS in Provo, Utah. See on the Internet:
Zion’s Lighthouse, Message Board,
A Forum Board for Academians, Apologists, and Skeptics Interested in things LDS, Established September, Year 2000; see posting in:
LDS Criticisms / Nature of Man, DD: DCP Decontextualizes ECT - www.ezboard.com. Responses that Dr. Daniel C. Peterson has made to charges about taking out of context statements made about deification by Early Christian Fathers = EFC. Anti-Mormon “Christian” Dan DeMura, Posts 38: 10-24-2000, 6:47:59 AM: Reply: “I grow weary of repeating myself, Dr. Peterson and Mormon Apologists with to draw “parallels” but
refuse to acknowledge the ECF [Early Christian Fathers] held a different WORLD VIEW and held a different VIEW of the relationship between GOD and MAN than do Mormons. . . thus it IS TWISTING OF WORDS to attempt to draw “parallels” from these mere WORDS that sound the same as mormon dogma.”
Dr. Daniel C. Peterson responds to this by saying how that he has “
never denied that there are differences, even highly significant differences, between patristic views of theosis and the Latter-day Saint notion of eternal progression. Quite the contrary. I have repeatedly said, in print, that the view of theosis in the Fathers is distinct from that held by Latter-day Saints. As an example, consider a passage from the very work in which, Mr. DeMura charges, I deliberately and consciously attempted to deceive my readers into thinking that there are no differences between patristic theosis and Latter-day Saint theosis: “We are, of course, under no illusions that such figures as Athanasius and the Byzantine fathers -- given their very different metaphysical and theological presuppositions -- understood theosis in precisely the same way as do the Latter-day Saints.” (Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks,
Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Aspen Books, 1992), p. 76). Addressing the same issue concerning parallels, but also differences between the LDS version of deification and many of the early Christian Fathers, Van Hale, an LDS apologists, said to James White, a Christian apologists, that he acknowledged that there were some differences, that though there are statements that sound similar, they don’t mean exactly the same things in a number of cases. James White claimed that the Christians’ views of deification were closer to the early Christians’ versions, than the LDS’ version of deification. Claiming that inasmuch as they held the same types of views about God as modern Christians do, it “destroys” the LDS use of parallels “completely”. Van Hale and Martin Tanner pointed out that there were a number of Christian scholars, there were outside of the LDS position that noted that, the LDS version of deification is closer than the versions that a number of Christian apologist claim. (
Radio shows on “K-Talk,”KTKK 630 AM Radio, Salt Lake City, Utah during the 1990's, Van Hale discussing deification, with James White, hosted by Martin Tanner on Religion on the Line)
.
Furthermore, Peterson and Ricks, with Martin Tanner, again on
Religion on the Line, during the 1990s, made this same point, that even though the statement that “God became man so we could learn how to become Gods,” goes back and back through the centuries, to where its origins are unknown as to who first said it. That even though it sounds similar to what Lorenzo Snow said, it still isn’t to be considered in
all cases as meaning exactly the same thing every time, especially in light of our understanding about what happened during the apostasy. Furthermore, Peterson later, on
Zion’s Lighthouse’s Message Board on the Internet, also wrote in Posts: 18, dated 10-24-00 in reply to Dan DeMura, that “those who, like Mr. DeMura, attack me and accuse me of dishonestly for allegedly
denying the differences and for claiming that humans can become ontologically like God are attacking a straw man of their own devising.” Dr. Peterson goes on to point out how that Greek philosophy, during the Hellenization period of the early centuries in historic Christianity, helped to shape later Christian versions of deification, hence, the very word “Ontology” is a “discipline that grows out of Greek philosophy and its appearance in patristic literature is a symptom of the Hellenization of the early church. In light of the fact, a Latter-day Saint such as myself. . . . is neither surprised nor even dismayed to see Hellenistic categories and modes of thought entering into patristic reasoning and distorting what the Fathers themselves acknowledge to have been an older doctrine.” Hence there were differences between the hellenized Christian fathers’ versions of deification, and “the earlier, relatively un-Hellenized Christians of the original church, and the Hebrews on whose foundation they built, held to a view of human deification much more close to that of the Latter-day Saints than was the teachings of Athanasius.” (See also: Daniel C. Peterson,
“Ye Are Gods’: Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind, in Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges, eds.,
The Disciple as Scholar: Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson,” (Provo, Utah: Foundation of Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, FARMS, 2000), 471--594; Keith Norman,
Deification and the Content of Athanasian Soteriology,” a 1980 Duke University doctoral dissertation, to be published in November by FARMS, 1-800-FARMS-15). On the same Message Board, Posts: 18, 10-24-2000, Rory McKenzie wrote: “If I understand correctly, LDS apologists do not claim that the ante-Nicene Fathers whom they cite as supportive of deification were Mormons. The Church had already apostasized [cia] and most specifically LDS doctrines had been lost. When quoting the Fathers, all they are attempting to do is to prove that there appears here and there, however widely scattered, evidence of a truth which has subsequently been lost.” (See also: Barry Robert Bickmore,
Restoring The Ancient Church, Joseph Smith & Early Christianity, (Ben Lomond, California: Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research, Inc. Also known as FAIR, 1999); Darell Thorpe's unpublished manuscripts and computer files (1986—1997);
Jesus Christ's "Everlasting Gospel" and Ancient "Patternism" (1990);
The Grand Pilgrimage: (Footnoting In & "Out of the Best Books"), Vol.1, Part 1, Issues 1-4, April-Aug, 1992; Daniel C. Peterson, Dr. and Stephen David Ricks, Professor:
Offenders For A Word {How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints}, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Aspen Books, 1992). Their article published under the title:
Comparing LDS Beliefs With 1st Century Christianity, published in
The Ensign, March 1988, p. 7-11, (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints); Eugene Seaich,
Mormonism the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Nag Hammadi Texts, (Murray, Utah: The Sounds of Zion, 1980); Seaich,
Ancient Texts and Mormonism, (Murray, Utah: Sounds of Zion, 1983); F.A. Wright, 1928,
Fathers of the Church, (London, England: George Routledge & Sons); Huge Nibley, Dr.(Series):
The Collected Works of Huge Nibley, (Provo and Salt Lake City, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies = F.A.R.M.S., and Deseret Book Company); volume 3:
The World And The Prophets; volume 4:
Mormonism and Early Christianity, (1987); Nibley,
The Early Christian Church in the Light of Some Newly Discovered Papyri from Egypt, (Provo, Utah: F.A.R.M.S. reprint, Nibley 1985. From a talk given by Dr. Nibley during a Tri-Stake Fireside, Brigham Young University, March 3, 1964); James L . Barker,
Apostasy From The Divine Church, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret News Press, 1960); Barker,
The Divine Church, Down through Change, Apostasy therefrom, and Restoration, (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The Council of The Twelve Apostles, 1952, CR David O. McKay 1951), three volumes: 1952, 1953, 1954; Jaroslav Pelikan,
The Illustrated Jesus Through The Centuries, (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1997); Jaroslav Pelikan,
The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, (Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press, 1971); Jaroslav Pelikan,
The Spirit of Eastern Christendom, (Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press, 1974). Nibley,
The Collected Works of Huge Nibley, vol.1,
Old Testament And Related Studies, p.150. In earlier centuries, deification was considered as being part of the resurrection. The body would be raised up out of the grave & clothed in a glorified body. Some to different degrees of glory than others (1 Corinthians chapter 15). However, there were some heretical sects who rejected the physical resurrection in those earlier centuries, while in later centuries the doctrine of a physical resurrection, in some cases was rejected and changed, for by the time of St. Augustine, many had settled for a
spiritual resurrection only. Hence, the later versions of deification that were influenced by anti-body, spirit resurrection elements, that corrupted later version of deification,
the LDS wouldn’t agree with, or find parallels with in their own version of deification.
The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 4: p. 475, bk.3, chap.28 & p.509 bk. 4 chap.29-30 & p.547, bk.5 chap. x & xiv-xix pp.549-551;
The Early Christian Church in the Light of Some Newly Discovered Papyri from Egypt, by Huge Nibley, pp.12-13; Apostasy to Restoration, Lyon, pp.89-91.
- I hope that doesn't offend you.
The notion that there are numberless gods out there, all born on different planets and all raised to their godhood by the god of those planets, and our God is just one of these gods, is beyond ridiculous. It borders on blasphemy. Indeed, I believe it is blasphemy.
