At Nine Moons, Rusty wonders why non-Mormons don’t like the Mormon idea of the deification of human beings.
… I asked him if he thought God was supremely happy. He said yes. Does God want us to be supremely happy? Yes. Why would God not do everything in His (all-encompassing) power to help us become like him? In other words, God doesn’t need to be above us, He’s not going to lift us only part of the way up to him. He wants us to become His equal, to be as happy as He is, not slightly less.
Why don’t we believe in that form of God-Making? We do believe in deification, or divinization. That’s been in the Church’s tradition from the beginning (though never as LDS believe it). No, our objection is not that we don’t want to believe in too concrete a God (we believe He became flesh, for pity’s sake – and we receive Him physically in the Eucharist, which has also been in the Church’s tradition from the beginning). It’s not that we want God to be ephemeral, or completely impenetrable and not in the least way comprehensible. Some God that would be.
Our objection actually comes from bigger matters. To LDS, God is of the same species as humans, but more advanced, like a butterfly to a caterpillar. We don’t believe any such thing. If we did, it would make no sense to object to humans becoming beings exactly like God is.
But rather, we believe that God is truly infinite, not caused by anything else, not composed of anything pre-existent, not needing anything to bring other things into being. As such, it’s categorically impossible for a created being to become exactly like God is. A finite being can’t change into an infinite one, any more than a character in a book by a human author can become a real human who had always lived as a real human.
This is the basic difference, but it has other implications that affect the whole discussion. For example, the idea of parenthood becomes very different. For LDS, parenthood is an eternal mechanism, with no origin. For us, family is one of the ways (the principal one, in fact) that humans image the Triune God. Fatherhood in this world is like a shadow or dim reflection of the eternal relationship of the Father with the Son. In other words, parenthood has its origins in God, rather than being something God (and everyone else) perpetuates.
Also, the infinite existence of the Son makes for a drastic change in the way we view the Incarnation. Being made flesh was an unnatural act of humility for Him, not something natural for his species. Keeping this and the previous point in mind, we see differently the way that humans are children of God. As Scripture says numerous times, we are adopted into His family – the eternal family of the Trinity.
Thus, becoming like God isn’t a matter of ageing, advancing, or metamorphosing. Thanks to the Son assuming a human nature like ours and entering into Heaven, we can likewise become as much like God as our finite human nature allows. We will be partakers of the divine nature, but unlike LDS, we believe there is only one divine nature; it is God’s alone. We will inherit all the rewards that Jesus, in His truly human nature, inherited. By baptism we are again His brothers and sisters by adoption.
In sum, the reason we won’t believe in the LDS idea of deification is because we believe in one truly infinite God, not many quasi-infinite ones.
Seth,
How is a being perfect, yet always progressing? If I’m good today and better tomorrow, then I wasn’t perfect
today, was I?
Also, what do you mean by the way you’re glorified when your children accomplish something? Do you mean personal satisfaction?
John F,
The tone of your post suggests more of a critique of my hermeneutic than of this particular belief. Is this correct?
To answer your question, I believe it for the same reason I accept the Bible as God’s word – because the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches it. I’m away from my library and rather tired, so I don’t have prooftexts to give you. I doubt it would be much use anyway; I’m sure we’d disagree on their interpretation.
I do have one that’s often overlooked; it was in the original King James Version of the Bible but unfortunately it is rejected or ignored by many Christians now:
(2 Maccabees 7:28)
P.S. To the new batch of visitors, thank you for your comments. I hope you enjoy the blog.
There wasn’t any hidden agenda in my comment, if that’s what you mean. I am satisfied with your answer though. It seems to me that such a belief must stem from something outside the Bible such as the treatises of Church Fathers, Scholastics, or philosophers.
To answer your question, I believe it for the same reason I accept the Bible as God’s word – because the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches it.
This answer was very refreshing, thank you. This depends on your faith that the Catholic Church has true priesthood authority from God, which of course you do believe. I point this out because it is only this fact (your belief in the Church’s authority) that lends independent authority to the voices of individuals outside the Bible. This is a huge stumbling block for Evangelical Christians because, in their belief in the inerrant AND sufficient Bible, they have difficulty really explaining adherence to creeds and why the creeds themselves should carry any authority at all, being extra-Biblical as they are. Similarly, if they begin relying on any “doctrines” or theories that find their roots in the abstractions of medieval Christian philosophers or even Catholic Church Fathers, then it raises the difficulty of why those voices should carry any authority over, say, Joseph Smith’s voice, if there is an underlying belief in Biblical supremacy that, if followed to its logical conclusion, would call into question why any credence at all should be lent to the voice of philosophers, unless they somehow have a corner on Truth because of their academic degrees.
I always find it interesting in conversations with Evangelicals how they are willing to rely heavily on the statements and theories of e.g. Martin Luther (who had to reject the book of James as a “stroherne Epistel” in order to formulate his fundamental doctrines) as somehow authoritative outside of the Bible itself.
You do not have this problem, since the authority claims of the Catholic Church, if I understand them correctly, go outside of the Bible to the teachings of others who bore that authority. In other words, it seems to me that even though these individuals based their abstractions on Biblical words and doctrines, their voices carry independent authority in and of themselves because of the priesthood they held. This resonates very much with me.
Well, even the canon of the Bible is something that was defined by the Catholic Church. As Bishop Henry G. Graham wrote in his short book Where We Got the Bible, the Catholic Church is the only one not set up or founded only on Scripture. The Church predates the written New Testament. The New Testament is a witness to the Church, not its judge. The Church, not Scripture, is the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).
I’m not trying to undercut the authority of the God-breathed Scripture in any way, but it’s not the sole authority on faith and morals. The teaching of the Church, the handing on (Latin tradere, whence we get “tradition”) of the Apostles’ teaching, must be present as well.
That brings me to my next point. Catholics do believe that all of the faith is in the Bible (i.e., Scripture is materially sufficient). We don’t know if it’s formally sufficient, meaning that one could study it without any knowledge of Church teaching, and arrive at all the same conclusions. So, I wouldn’t say that we believe things that aren’t in the Bible – it’s just that some things are only in the Bible in a subtle or implicit way, and require clarification by the teaching of the Apostles and their disciples, scrutiny with the rest of Scripture, exploration by the human mind, etc.
Seth said:
“Mormons agree with the “never diminishes” part. But we hold that a being that cannot progress is not perfect. If God does not expand and grow in glory and majesty continually, He is not God.”
You seem to be saying that to be perfect, you must lack something (because you must lack something in order to later achieve it) and have potential to obtain something in the future in order to be perfect. So if I understand you correctly, I am a perfect speaker of Japanese because I do not now speak it but with work and study I may speak it at some future time. Huh?
As Bishop Henry G. Graham wrote in his short book Where We Got the Bible, the Catholic Church is the only one not set up or founded only on Scripture.
So Graham ignores Latter-day Saints in his book?
The Church predates the written New Testament. The New Testament is a witness to the Church, not its judge.
Many if not most Latter-day Saints agree with this premise. You must not forget that Latter-day Saints consider themselves to be the continuation of the New Testament Church (i.e. the “Primitive Church”). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the same Church as Jesus Christ’s original Church — with a gap of approximately 1700 years (give or take 50 years depending on when one believes the true priesthood authority disappeared from the earth).
Maybe. At the time Bishop Graham wrote the book, the LDS church had fewer than a million members. Maybe he hadn’t even heard of it. On the other hand, Newman mentioned Mormonism (albeit only once, and by mentioning it in a list) in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, which predates Bp. Graham’s book.
But my point was just that even the Bible (used by LDS) comes to us on the authority of the Catholic Church.
Of course. The statements in my first paragraph were mainly just to agree with you as against Protestant notions of doctrinal authority.
Well First off… David Waltz is not a Mormon… After invetigating the LDS Church and the RCC for 10 years he finaly Chose Catholic. So no he does not beleive in a “universal apostasy”. Just thought you mightr want to know.
I forgot to mention Father Vadja’s Thesis also mentions the teachings of the EO on “Eternal Progression”. It’s a great Thesis!
http://www.byubookstore.com/ePOS/store=439&item_number=1340923&form=shared3/gm/detail.html&design=439
Well worth the $9.
Thanks for the comments, Zakuska. Yes, Mr. Waltz cleared that up.
I’ve read Mr. Vajda’s thesis (I don’t know whether to call him “father,” as he has since become a Mormon), and indeed, I would say it not only mentions EO teaching, but is centered on it.
Keep up the great work on your blog. Best wishes WaltDe
#56 Brian,
That’s couching the example in inadequate mortal terms. Who said that progression requires that God be “lacking” in the sense we understand it?
But your question strikes to the heart of the matter.
Everyone makes such a big deal over the theodicy: “why would a perfect God create a universe that contains evil?”
But that question is really incidental to a bigger logical problem: “why would a perfect God create a universe at all?”
Think that one over for a moment. I think you’ll find that logic ultimately fails us here.
[...] The doctrine that men can become gods is a solid belief held by Mormons, Catholics, and early Christians (see also here) . I think the main difference between Mormons and Catholics is that the teaching gets much more emphasis in Mormonism. The next biggest difference is that Catholicism stresses different natures for God and man while Mormonism treats God and man as the same species, with God being more advanced than us. The Bible can be used to support the idea that man can become like God, for example see John 17 and 2 Peter 1 . [...]
I always wondered what the Catholic and Greek Orthodox “officially, canonically, ex cathedra” believe about any possible post-resurrection limitations on becoming “God.” I.e., if we can become “God,” how far does that go? I’ve heard Evangelicals, Catholics, and other Christians say, “hey, we Christians have always believed we can become God, and of course, we NEVER STOPPED believing that.” Of course, this sounds revisionist in light of the fact that Joseph Smith received an extremely negative reaction from other “Christians” when he first said we can become gods. It is inarguable that Christians were angrier at Joseph’s doctrine more than non-Christians (religious or otherwise). I never heard any regular, average Catholic tell me, “hey, we Catholics believe we can become gods too.” It’s like everyone is jumping on the “deification” band-wagon because NOW it’s demonstrable that the Bible and Early Christianity clearly and specifically taught that the sons of God become, and even now are, “gods,” even heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ. Sons of dogs are dogs, sons of humans are humans, so what are the sons of God? Dare we say gods? We are “gods” because we are “sons of God” (Ps 82:6; Jo 10:35-36 w/ Jo 1:12-13 & 1 Jo 3:1-9; Ro 8:17,32; Rev 21:7; Gal 4:1-7; 1 Jo 3:1-4). So just how far can be become “God” according to the Bible? We become One with God even as Christ is One with God (Jo 10:30,18 w/ Jo 17:21-23; 14:10 w/ 14:20; 2 Peter 1:4; 1 Cor 6:17; 2 Cor 3:18 w/ 2 Cor 4:4 & Heb 1:3). Enough said. But the question remains, let’s say, for sake of argument, that all of us Christians believe we can become “God”, then how far can we become “God”? Is there any limit? If there is a limit to our POST-RESURRECTION DEIFICATION, then where is such a limit “canonized” or “ex cathedra” or “in scripture”?