Talk:Divinization (Christian)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Old discussions from 2003

Some Mormons argue that even assuming mainstream Christianity's definition of God's omnipotence and omniscience, not only can God exalt mortal man, but God must do so.

I don't understand this sentence. I don't know what the issue is supposed to be, to which Mormons are contributing their "argument"; I don't know what it means that God "must" exalt mortal man. Mkmcconn 20:54, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. It is not clear what the writer meant. I have no idea who wrote it, but I'll change it.

Sorry for that very brief and very confusing statement. Where it reads, omniscience, it should have read, omnibenevolence. The idea is that the Mormon meaning of deification is supported even by mainstream Christianity's definition of God's omnipotence and omnibenevolence (in contrast to Mormonism's less literal definition of God's omnipotence). Namely, if God really is omnipotent, then God can deify mortal man...and if God really is also omnibenevolent, then not only can God deify man, but God's goodness compels God to deify man. —B 23:36, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

Much more clear. Thanks. Mkmcconn 23:40, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This does raise a question for me; and since I argued with my wife today, and lost, concerning who should have the car this morning, I am in the mood to ask it. Should "omnipotence" and "omnibenevolence" imply, as your argument holds, that making gods out of created beings is something that God must do, then why do you not expect that every person would be exalted? For that matter, is God too small to exalt animals? vegetables? rocks or sand?

Perhaps the argument assumes the same shallow and useless understanding of "omnipotence" and "omnibenevolence" as atheists do? Argumentatively yourse, Mkmcconn 21:52, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am curious. Being Orthodox, we believe that God's benevolence includes allowing mankind to have free will to choose holy ways or not, to work toward theosis or not. If it is mandantory that God exalt mortal man, what does that say for what Mormons believe about free will and why it does (or doesn't) exist? Epte 04:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed the nature of God is to become the nature of Man to the nature of God is to become united with the nature of Man. This is an important distinction. This union of the two natures first took place in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, when the two natures were joined in Christ's one person. God's divine nature is unfathomable, and will never be understood by us, much less become completely ours. Theosis is rather our participation in God's divine energies (as described/defined by Gregory Palamas) and union with His nature. We will still never be divine in quite the same way that God is divine; we will still always possess a human nature only, it's just that that human nature will be thoroughly healed and cleansed, and united with the divine nature. At least that's my current understanding. References available, and corrections remain most welcome. :-) Wesley 06:23, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

excellent Mkmcconn 18:17, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Entire sanctification

I'm pretty sure that it is tolerable to teach "entire sanctification" in the EOC; although I'm sure that it isn't a doctrine in the sense of being something necessarily believed. Therefore, I would like to remove the disclaimer sentence in the opening paragraph, which says "but this is not a doctrine of Orthodoxy". Mkmcconn 16:09, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The "EOC" abbreviation threw me for a minute; my first assumption was "Evangelical Orthodox Church", which my local parish used to be part of until not that long ago; then I realized you probably meant "Eastern Orthodox Church", right? Gotta love these TLA's, especially with regard to denominations. Anyway, "entire sanctification" is probably one of those teachings that isn't officially affirmed or denied by Eastern Orthodoxy, in large part because the doctrine of entire sanctification was formed in a different context and in response to different questions and answers than anything Eastern Orthodoxy has really needed to directly confront. In a similar vein, I haven't been able to get a straight answer from anyone as to what Orthodoxy thinks of semi-pelagianism; closest I've come is "Orthodoxy deals with different questions" or "Orthdoxy would pose the question differently, and then answer that other question like this". Coming back to entire sanctification, the closest thing to an "official" position I can think of is just a story of a monk telling his abbot that he had finally "arrived" and was no longer experiencing any temptation to sin, much less sinning. The abbot answered that he would ask the other monks to pray fervently for him, since to not struggle with temptation was to be not fighting the Christian fight at all, or something along those lines that was generally rather unfavorable. Wesley \

"Semipelagianism" is a non-issue, since we never had to really deal with Pelagianism. Any Orthodox conciliar condemnations of the doctrine were simply confirmations of some local synodic condemnation, with no great debate over the matter. What I can say is that the Orthodox Church greatly stresses the doctrine of "Synergy". The GOARCH web site has a good explication of this:

A better view is the so-called "dynamic view" of the cooperation between man and the Holy Spirit in the case of the Bible. In any case of "synergy" (cooperation) between God and man, God leads, and man follows; God works, and man accepts God's work in him, as God's coworker in subordination to Him.

Divine grace, the work of the Holy Spirit, is a free gift, necessary for our salvation, non-coercive, which requires our cooperation (synergy). Our response to the grace of God is our works of love, which are the fruits of God's grace working in us. We are justified by God's grace. However, this justification is not real, unless it produces the "works of righteousness."

Thus, as you can see, hardcore Augustinianism and Calvinism would be outright anathemized within Orthodoxy, as they deny any possibility of cooperation on the part of the sinner. God freely permits us to exercise our choice, just as He humbled himself to take on our nature. That is, we only have the opportunity to cooperate or not cooperate specifically because it is His will that we have this opportunity. 134.68.153.37 21:19, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also, the "standard" morning prayers you find often include a line to the effect of "grant that we might pass this day without sin", which you might think would imply a belief that such a thing was possible. But the "standard" evening prayers include Psalm 50 (Ps. 51 in the Masoretic text) and other confessions of sin and requests for God's mercy, and later perhaps the request "grant that we might pass this evening without sin." Another Orthodox story: a villager for a while lived in awe of the presumed piety and holiness of the monks at a nearby monastery. Once he met a monk on the street and asked him what the spiritual life was like behind the monastery walls, and was told, "We fall down, and we get up. We fall down again, and we get up again." There. Nothing as official as a canon from an ecumenical council, but that about sums up what little I know of what Orthodoxy thinks of entire sanctification. And I've been interested in the question, as I was a Methodist for a while (among other denominations) and not unfamiliar with Wesley's thoughts about it. Wesley \

Inasumuch as I understand the Church's teachings on this matter (and it is actually not considered to be all that important, in any case), it might be theoretically possible for someone to be sinless, but the instant that one has the thought "I am without sin." one has committed a sin--specifically one has indulged in self-pride. 134.68.153.37 21:19, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Having said all that, I'm sure that opening paragraph could be worded better; it is a little awkward as it is now. I'm not trying to discourage any changes there. :-) Wesley 06:02, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Having been Orthodox for a short time (5 years), I'll offer some ramblings from my POV. While theosis is partly striving for a sinless, holy life, it is also being transfigured by the grace of God, by the Holy Spirit acting within us. Jesus Christ said to go and sin no more; this seems to suggest that it's possible. Be holy as your Father in heaven is holy (I Peter). The example of the morning prayers above is a weak one. Elsewhere in the liturgy is the prayer that "that the remainder of the present day and the whole time of our life may be peaceful and sinless". Being "without sin" and "living a sinless life" are different things, the latter possibly having sinned in the past. Also, "living a sinless life" is more than just keeping your record clean of strikes, it is more of the stance of your very will and soul, of becoming unobstructedly in the constant presence of God. Personally, I take comfort in knowing that it is possible to truly repent. If it be possible to give up one particular sin entirely, why can't that be extended to the whole? We are exhorted to be sinless, and our hope is to be sinless, holy people. If it weren't possible, our strivings may not be in vain or misplaced (still asympotically useful), but some of us would feel a bit misguided, at least. Epte 04:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

moved from article

' As stated earlier, most Christians who advocate theosis consider that theosis without the background and base of the doctrine of the Trinity amounts to the Satan rebellion of trying to be the same as God in glory, power, and status. '

This doesn't make sense to me. I assume their was some sort of typing or merging error? Sam [Spade] 17:16, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi Sam. I would say that even if theologically plausible, it is too windy a statement to warrant entry into the encyclopedia. Trc | [msg] 17:20, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I'm the author of the deleted text, but I think I can tell you what the intent was. Mormons want to quote the Church Fathers' talk about theosis to support their own idea of becoming equal with God. But Mormons reject the theology of the Trinity, which the Fathers being quoted held. Divorcing the Fathers' doctrine of theosis from the doctrine of the Trinity, makes Man simply wanting to be God's equal in power and glory etc., which is Satan's original aspiration and which led to his fall, at least according to an allegorical reading of Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28. The gist is that Mormons are taking the Fathers' words about theosis grossly out of context if they divorce the idea of theosis from that of the Trinity. Therefore the sentence should be restored, though perhaps in a way that makes this idea clearer. Does that make any sense at all? Wesley 03:42, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Some. I would ask you to discuss this here for a time, and then write a completely different sentance (perhaps another paragraph) rather than make a minor change to this one however. You seem to be suggesting that Satan tried to be God(like?), and thus theosist christians may be satanic in intent? Am I following correctly? Sam [Spade] 03:50, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Embedded comments

There have recently been a number of comments added to the article as HTML comments. Many of them are good comments, but they ought to be here on the Talk page where they can be better preserved, as well as form the start of a dialogue. Wesley 03:33, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Here's one representative comment:

==Theosis in Christianity==<!-- why did this say "Orthodox"? -->
<!-- This entry will need a lot of work to ensure there is no confusion among union 
with God and the call to holiness, no assertion that a Christian mystical concept is only 
for the East or only found in the East, and to avoid other related confusions.-->

I would agree that the notion of theosis is not confined to Orthodox Christianity; it is also found in the West. However, it is likewise not confined to "Christian mysticism", at least as I understand that term. Theosis is foundational to the Orthodox understanding of salvation; it is essential. Understanding of it may vary; the precise means or asceticisms attempted to "achieve" or "attain" theosis may vary, and may indeed be more pronounced or visible among some Orthodox mystics. But the theology of theosis is foundational. Some sections should perhaps be rephrased to not limit it to Orthodoxy, but they should not confine the idea of theosis to "mysticism" either. Unless of course one wants to define belief in God or in anything supernatural to be mysticism. Wesley 03:56, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello! I tucked those comments into there. The entry should not be left in a condition that implies to encyclopedia users that (a) the seeking of spiritual union is found only in the East while in the West they are presumably focused on legalistic concerns, (b) spiritual union is only really understood in its whole progression in the East, while in the West they haven't got beyond more elementary notions; nor indeed other related misimpressions that are quite without foundation. Trc | [msg] 11:43, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I can see your point. Let's keep working on the article to avoid both misperceptions. It will be a good article if we can do that. In general, I sometimes attribute particular ideas or practices to Eastern Orthodoxy only because I'm not sure whether they are more widely shared or not; in these cases, I'm depending on someone to eventually come along and correct the instances where the idea or practice is in fact held more widely. This may turn out to be one of those cases. Wesley 16:52, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

-> I offered a new edit. One thing I left out entirely was the Methodist connection. It struck me as erroneous to suppose that something was "rediscovered" that was never forgotten by anyone. Also I doubt a strong connection with theosis properly understood. But maybe it should be put back in. I was more concerned with the key issues. I also ignored the Mormon section. In my edit the parallels throughout apostolic Christianity are much more clearly drawn. Trc | [msg] 05:00, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This terminology is foreign to most Protestants; it was "rediscovered" by movements in Protestantism, in that sense. There is a connection between the Methodist doctrine and "theosis" properly understood. Here is a Google test that illustrates this connection, for your edification. Mkmcconn — 17:42, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Union between God and Man

The opening paragraph has this disclaimer, which seems to be overstated:

Theosis does not imply that the Divine Nature of God will become united with the mortal nature of humanity: the ontological wall between the created and the Uncreated will not be torn down.

According to the Chalcedonian Creed, the Divine and human natures already have been united in the Person of Jesus Christ. They remain distinct from each other, unconfused, but in Christ they are also inseparable. Their union in Jesus' person makes possible our union with God. This is already spelled out later in the article; can we agree to amend the opening accordingly? Wesley 17:17, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes I agree that this element was overstated. Still a useful point to make, though, as people not familiar with Christianity might wonder about Christians trying to become God. Trc | [msg] 04:57, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Becoming God"/"Becoming god"

Theosis can be translated as "becoming god", but not as "becoming God". Capital-G God is distinguished in Greek by the definite article (ho Theos) and the Greek Fathers did not use this term. A common analogy is a sword placed in the fire: the sword will glow and give off light and heat like the fire, because it is acquiring some of the fire's nature from basking in the fire, but it remains distinct from the fire. So are the saints as they bask in the glory of God. Lawrence King 07:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, it has been posited that a more appropriate translation would be "becoming divine" or "becoming God-like". Similar Greek constructions are found in such verses as "God is love" which would more appropriately be translated as "God is loving" (God characteristically has love. Love in itself cannot be said to be God). Epte 04:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Why can't Love be God? Or at least the expression of God, or even the means by which God moves the world and we can become one with him? Most mystical traditions within the Christian world believe so. ThePeg 22:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I might retract my comment above. I've seen some interesting arguments since then, e.g. "Being as Communion" by Zizioulas. Epte 19:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The translators of the Bible would seem to be guilty of a certain inconsistency in the distinction between ho theos (God)and theos (god, a god). The first and second verses of the Gospel of John say that the Word (ho logos) was/is "with ho theos", and the first verse also says that the word (ho logos) was/is "theos" (no article). Yet every English translation I've seen reads "the word was God"--none of them read "the Word was a god" or "the Word was godlike". Jesus' enemies later charge him with blasphemy in that "...you, a man, make yourself theos (again, no article), and this is always translated as "...you, a man, make yourself God"--which, if the distinction between theos and ho theos obtains, is an ungood translation. Could it be that the translators are cheating? Could it be that they're reading the Nicean Creed back into the Bible? Tom129.93.65.134 (talk) 04:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Apotheosis

Apotheosis is also a term wrongly used for Theosis. To become blessed or to become divine or holy in Eastern Orthodoxy does not mean to become God, though Scripture does tell us that one-ness with God was the reason Christ was sent on Earth. --203.59.182.2 18:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

If I am one with God and God is one with me, explain to me how we are not the same? 'Becoming God' does not mean replacing or usurping God. This I think has been the traditional battle between established churches and visionary Christians down through the ages. ThePeg 23:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried to put 'related terms' on a separate line but it would not stay

I have added Biblical Quotes in the first section to give the article more support. Hope no-one minds. Can someone help with this? Also I agree with previous discussion that non-Chrtians may be put of by Christians trying to become Gods. A call to godlyness and holyness or consecration by the Eastern Fathers does not mean the same thing as some Gnostics used to think that they could become God. The Greek Word Theos is taken from Greek Mythology but in Christianity it means YHWH (Hebrew). Theosis should not be confused with Apotheosis. One deals with grace, the latter with an essential tranformation into God or a god. Hence the emergence of Energy-Essence distinction theology. Ie St Maximus the Confessor, St Gregory Palamas etc.

oops forgot to sign--203.59.182.2 18:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

why redir from deified/Deification?

Christians didn't invent deification. I got here following a wikilink in Elagabalus (deification of Roman emperors), fixed that one by changing it to Imperial cult, but I suggest deified and Deification be redir'd to Divinization rather than here.--84.188.139.121 01:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, Deification has a disambiguation page, linkinng to both here and Apotheosis which apears to be the same basic idea as Elagabalus. You think elagabalus should be listed along with apotheosis and theosis? not a bad idea actually. Alienburrito 17:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito.

...On Polygamy

I saw something interesting and I would just like to comment about it...

The article states that according to the Mormons, when we die, we'll get multiple wives in heaven and populate different planets...

What the main problem we're running into is this; Jesus stated that in heaven, no one is married or given in marriage...and Mormons claim that they honor and obey the Bible as well...

...Isn't there a visible contradiction?

--JJ

JJ - You're view is almost correct - they do believe marriage extends beyond the grave, and that a man with multiple wives is acceptable, at least in some circumstances. Lot of history and stuff around that, too much to get into here. However, the mairrages occur on earth, so they say that passage means "of course noone marries or is given in marriage in heaven - that has to be done on earth - as one of a number of things that enables you to enter heaven" Of course they do have a lot of rather unusual beliefs in addition to this, and interpret the bible very differently than most others do. Alienburrito 04:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

No, but I'll leave it to someone with more tact to explain. If you don't want to wait for that, it's addressed at http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/love.shtml#heaven . In any case, whether this is a visibile contradiction or not, it belongs in the article. If you want to learn more about or communicate with editors interested in Mormonism, check out WP:LDS. Of course, you're always welcome by my talk page as well.

You can and should sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ to produce this: Cookiecaper 09:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC) . Hope to see you around. :) Cookiecaper 09:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

From my talks with Mormons (possibly not official Mormon doctrine?), they usually claim that they believe the Bible is flawed, which Mormon doctrine corrects. Epte 04:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

yes, one of the teachings of the founder of the Mormon church, and the main justification for his mission as a prophet, was that over the centuries many things in the bible had been altered - see [[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/13 1st nephi 12:29-29

Alienburrito 04:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

Hello friends. You all write about theosis as if it were one objective standardized concept. You should qualify your discusssions with regional and plural markers i.e. Wesleyan theoses or Syrian Greek Orthodox theoses of the 14th century or Pentecostal theoses in Atlanta or the theosis of Luther etc. Otherwise you come off sounding rather repressive. Thanks Theandra 11:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding intra-Orthodox distinction, Orthodox aren't in the habit of specifying that Russian Orthodox believe this whereas Greek Orthodox believe that (or insert other nationality), because there really is a large degree of unity doctrinally and in the faith of constituents. I have been personally amazed at this, having seen it for myself and having partaken of this one faith across ethnicity, history, and patriarchates. As an evangelical protestant, I never saw the like of it. We don't specify a difference because often a difference is not felt. Orthodox teaching is Orthodox teaching no matter where you go (the different patriarchates being different geographical jurisdictions), just as the Divine Liturgy is the same (with slight variation) such that you can actually learn a foreign language if you know it in your native tongue well enough. Epte 04:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Epte is correct. Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthdodox are doctrinally the same; they are geographic or national differences, not confessional differences. The distinction between Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox is like the distinction between the Anglican Church in Britain and the Episcopal Church in the U.S. The "denomination", as we usually call it, is the same. Tom129.93.65.134 (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of major rewrite

While I appreciate the significant effort (anonymous) has put into rewriting major parts of this article, I think he or she needs to slow down and go a bit more slowly. Stylistically speaking, simple words should not be wikilinked every time they appear. In particular, quotations should rarely if ever have words in them wikilinked, since the authors certainly were not linking to wikipedia articles. Language should try to avoid expressing an opinion as though Wikipedia held that opinion; views should be attributed to the people or groups who hold them.

More substantially, the Catechism of the [Roman] Catholic Church is almost certainly not the best source for Eastern Orthodox theology of theosis, even if the two bodies were in substantial agreement on the subject.

While I'm reluctant to undo what has probably been a great deal of well intentioned work, a full reversion appears to be the most expedient way to address these deficiencies. I apologize if this seems to protectionist, and I hope to work on constructive changes together. Wesley 05:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate presentation of Christian Perfection doctrine

Holiness/Christian Perfection doctrine is quite diverse. The notion that it is to become capable of living without sin describes only a minority of the movement. The wiki on Christian Perfection makes this clear. Your labeling as heretical of the movement as a whole is inaccurate. 69.244.244.192 06:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

OR Tag

Kenosis, you added an OR tag, but you have not explained yourself as required by the tag. Either present your specific reasons or the tag will be deleted. Tags are used to improve articles; they are not soapboxes to express personal opinions. Please help us improve the article by explaining your actions. Thanks. Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is rife with editors' interpretations of Biblical passages (primary source material), and the vast majority of the content isn't verified at all. Until it is, a note of caveat emptor for the reader is appropriate. ... Kenosis 03:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

henosis

Kenosis I am curious about your edit. How is the posting I posted POV of western orthodox? Do you mean theologically? If so, would that be against V. Lossky? Is neoplatonicism a western orthodox POV? LoveMonkey 04:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

(1) The edit summary for the inclusion of this passage about henosis ([1]) stated the apparent intent of the editor who added it. The edit summary said: "Origen heresies ar not church theology@"

(2) The added sentence "To merge with God in Greek would be henosis.", taken by itself, would be reasonable. Tacked onto the end of that paragraph, it reads as a blatant Western orthodox POV in my reading of it. (The prior sentence currently is the following largely Western apologetic: "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.") Not all Eastern orthodox perspectives agree with the prior sentence by itself, let alone when the new sentence was added in its earlier form (now changed by User:LoveMonkey).

(3) The existing prior sentence already stretches the boundaries of a POV based on a Western evangelical perspective imposed upon a section devoted to Eastern orthodox views of theosis/divinization. The whole point of the concept of theosis is the assertion that all persons can seek divinization, and indeed achieve it. For the Western orthodox perspective this will only happen on the "last day", as they say. For Eastern orthodox theology, in general, this quest for union with God can be actually achieved, the remaining questions usually surrounding the idea of what it means to be "one with" or "at one with" God. Someone will need to address this issue squarely at some point in the article's future development.

That, in short, is why I removed the earlier version of the sentence. The current version, incidentally, could very easily be placed somewhere else in the article. That sentence presently reads "In Greek philosophy henosis is Greek for deification." ... Kenosis 04:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no relationship between the "henosis" concept and this topic. I have removed it, as it is irrelevant. It is arguably comparable, in a superficial respect: as the Mormon concept is superficially comparable, and therefore discusses this comparison in a distinct section. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Got Greek?

So Kenosis and Mark name your Greek Orthodox theologians. That you are quoting, I named mine. Lossky and Professor Ed Moore. Both Greek Orthodox theologians, As is the case with Henosis. It is important to understand the confusion that the term theosis causes, that was what prompted Professor Moore from the Greek Orthodox theological seminary where he works to write the article to clarify the difference between philosophical divination (henosis) and Greek orthodox divination (theosis). His article is quote clear. Since this article has a banner across it stating that it is original research I thought adding a dead and living Greek Orthodox theologian would at least give the article alittle credibility. Where are yours? So name your Greek orthodox theologians. I mean I can name you some who imply that the general concept of theosis is against Orthodoxy even though they are themselves Greek Orthodox. But I want to see YOUR sources from within the Greek Orthodox church. LoveMonkey 17:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You are asking for documentation for what? The material does not fit the context. It should go somewhere else. 24.20.109.51 22:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Circular logic is a logical fallacy. Theosis has a shared history with the neoplatonic term henosis. Since much of Orthodox theology uses Hellenic philosophical terms. Also name your eastern orthodox theologians. Name your sources and then maybe we can see if they are believed representative of the Greek Orthodox church. Stop blowing smoke, dodging and engaging in distractions and name your sources. And sign your posts. LoveMonkey 03:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The claim wasn't that scholars don't compare the two terms, but only that the discussion of this different concept appeared in the wrong place in this article. Following the writers you cite, the discussion should be expanded, only not in the leading sections of the article. I think of Ignatius when I think of henosis, becoming one - I doubt he meant a neo-platonic sense, though. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox Christian sources: scholars or holy men?

I haven't yet seen this topic raised, and for this particular subject, I feel it is relevant. Within Eastern Orthodox Christianity (or at least my experience with it), there are two conceptions of "theologian", viz. "those who know about God" (scholarly types) and "those who know God" (holy men, saints). For theosis, it is my experience that within Eastern Orthodox Christian communities that, for the subject of theosis at least, that the latter (and quotes from them) would be given more weight than the former, not just for vague spiritual instruction but also for the specifics of how to go about attaining theosis and the conception of what theosis is. We tend to look to our Saints, because who is there better to tell us of theosis than those who have attained it?

I don't mean to polarize the issue. Likewise, I would trust the knowledge of my bishop and priest over that of someone who merely has a degree. There is a continuum to be had here.

So the question I put to the participants in this talk page: whom do we quote (more often?) as authorities when it comes to Eastern Orthodox Christian theosis? Outside readers would likely give more weight to the "experts", viz. the scholars who have studied and summarized it (and those summaries can truly be useful). However I, for one, would feel misrepresented if there weren't quotes from the "experts", viz. the ones in the field and have been doing it.

I do not know what the Correct (tm) approach would be. And I am not implying that the two categories are mutually exclusive, however often they are. I am putting the question out for consideration and comment. Epte 17:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

???? The vital component is not gnosis, that validates. If you are tackling theosis you know the valid component has a VERY specific name. Like say the difference between Seraphim Rose and St Seraphim of Sarov. One spoke in a western scholastic terminology'ish way that layed out knowledge/gnosis. The other spoke the truth that was not scholastic, legalistic or pedantic. It was the real, real, the truth basic on the critical component. You are Orthodox you know what "silences all flesh". And no don't be silly it is not death. Or in code, the experience of the cloud and THE "light". Email me if you don't or have not the experience. God Bless you. LoveMonkey 03:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking more of the difference between both of those and someone like Clendenin (who has a sympathetic academic attitude towards Orthodoxy, but it ends there). Seraphim Rose might be an example of both being scholarly and saintly, but I don't know him well. Epte 16:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV/tone problems

Early in the article there is the phrase "Athanasius... wrote... His statement illustrates the concept beautifully.

"Beautiful" is an opinion, and also it is a word that is definitely not encyclopedic in tone.
It's a POV statement: not everyone agrees that Athanasius's statement is "beautiful" or even "a beautiful illustration" or even a good illustration. I think it's confusing and could all too easily be interpreted in a blasphemous manner.

Unfortunately I don't know how to fix it. Awaiting suggestions before I tag the page. 70.19.36.22 17:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I made an edit to respond to your concern. Do you find it more acceptable? Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow!

Wow! So there we go! The concept of humanity becoming one with God through Christ - the vision which in Western Europe has had to go underground into movements such as Rosicrucianism etc - was out there in the open in the East! I had no idea! The belief that people like the Cathars died for was present in Byzantium. I've always felt this was the true message of the Gospels and the vision of the Christians - indeed even in the West many individuals believed this - Hildegard, Juliana Of Norwich, Meister Ekhardt etc - but have always been repelled by the opposite doctrine extolled by most organised churches: ie that we are all wretched sinners about as far from God and Christ as is possible. Interesting. Thanks Wikipedia for showing me it has always been out there. ThePeg 22:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This exaggerates on all accounts - that the West differs from the east, that Western mystics are in sympathy with Eastern Christianity, and that in the West's view "wretched sinners" are "as far from God and Christ as is possible. To the extent that the article contributes to these distortions, it should be fixed. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Mkmc, do you think there was any difference in the approach from Eastern Orthodoxy and Western? Although many early church fathers in the West covered the same thoughts as Athanasius, the church seems to have de-emphasized this teaching i.e. it may have agreed with the East, but did not teach it openly. Is this incorrect to your understanding? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that the difference is important (otherwise there would be nothing distinctive to appreciate), but it must not be exaggerated. Ireneaus, Athanasius, Maximus, and the Cappadocians are all "saints" in both the east and the west. The difference is most pronounced (and likely to be exaggerated) in those prominent figures of the West and their ideas as they are less highly regarded in the East, or even held in open contempt: Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas, especially. The tendency in the west to develop rational and psychological analogies to describe the Trinity, as well as the tendency in the east to under-emphasize or reject the legal aspects of sin, atonement, forgiveness, justification, or sanctification, are typical of the different trajectories that these traditions have taken.

But Eastern Orthodoxy is not hermetic/theosophic/gnostic, pantheist, panentheist, or pluri-theist, as it is made to seem by exaggeration. Theosis arises out of the doctrine of the Trinity - and there is no idea of salvation even remotely comparable to it, apart from that. Wherever attention returns to the Trinity in the West, ideas closely akin to theosis are immediately put to the front: "adoption as sons", "sons, born of God", "union with Christ", "fellowship in the Spirit", "partakers of divine nature", and all other biblical and theological language of reciprocity and participation in Christ.

Whereby, as before He of ours, so now we of His are made partakers. He clothed with our flesh, and we invested with His Spirit. The great promise of the Old Testament accomplished, that He should partake our human nature; and the great and precious promise of the New, that we should be “consortes divinae naturae”, “partake his divine nature,” both are this day accomplished. - Lancelot Andrewes

— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we are saying the same thing and I agree completely with you. Another point would is thta the concept of Theosis is a single issue that does not divide. Though a difference exists, there is so much more in common. Your point of exaggeration is appropriate. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Mormonism and theosis

I just deleted the following passage from the article:

In Mormonism, the concept of Deification or Exaltation also extends to becoming literally a god, much as our God was once a man who became a god through obedience to the gospel. We as the literal offspring of God may also become deities and eventually create our own worlds and populate them with our own children. Joseph Smith, the founder of the LDS (Mormon) church said in a sermon at the funeral of a church member, King Follet :

God himself. was Once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible,—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.
In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.
These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.^[1]

This passage is often used to sensationalize the LDS view of theosis or exaltation; however the passage has nothing to do with exaltation and has to do with the nature of God.

Some LDS members and those who seek to sensationalize love this phrase, "will become" gods. In truth, the concept can not be taught from LDS canon. We have no explanation of what it means to be united with God or to become one with God. It has been assumed that this concept of becoming like god entails participating in the creative process, but without any explanation to what degree. They are mere assumptions and are not doctrine. They are cultural theology almost by default because LDS do talk about becoming like our Father in Heaven, but any attempt to explain further than that is conjecture and not doctrine.

I acknowledge that some of the leaders have talked about these issues in one fashion or another, but nothing of it has become part of the canon of scripture and until it does it is not doctrinal. Theologically, LDS believe in eternal progression; that Heaven is not static. The eternities for those who are exalted are found in perfect union with the Father and the Son; when we go beyond that point we enter areas that are not known yet. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Becoming a "god" and becoming a "God" are two seperate issues. acknowledging that we have some level of divinity as God is our father - or as Jesus and the Psalms said, "ye are gods, children of the most high." What is means to be gods, ends with that exact idea. We simply don't know. -Visorstuff 00:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider, your explanation does not accurately account for Mormon canon and tradition. Could it be more explicit than D&C 132: 20, in which the Mormon canon declares that those who become gods "have all power"? "Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them." Furthermore, this is far from an exceptional message in Mormon canon and tradition, as illustrated in the following text excerpts: Joseph Smith, D&C 132: 18-20, 130: 9-11, 128: 22-23, 121: 26-33, 103: 9-10, 93: 19-20, 93: 1-2, 88: 40-50, 76: 51-58, 45: 8, 35: 2, 34: 3, 11: 30; Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 3: 16-19, Moses 6: 8-9, Moses 4: 11; Book of Mormon, Moroni 7: 48, Moroni 7: 26, 3 Nephi 12: 48, 3 Nephi 12: 8-10, 3 Nephi 9: 17, Alma 5: 19; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 3: 93, 336, 7: 333; Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses 6: 120; Heber C Kimball, Journal of Discourses 5: 19, 8: 211; Orson Pratt, The Seer 23, 132; James Talmage, Study of the Articles of Faith 430; Bruce R McConkie, Mormon Doctrine 250, 322, 642-643; Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1: 10-12; Bible, Genesis 1: 26-27, 3: 5, 9: 6, Deuteronomy 10: 17, Joshua 22: 22, Psalm 2: 7-8, 82: 6, 136: 2, Daniel 2: 47, Obadiah 1: 21, Matthew 5: 8-10, 48, John 1: 12, 10: 34-36, 14: 12, 17: 21-23, Acts 17: 28, Romans 8: 14-29, Galatians 3: 26-27, 4: 6-7, Ephesians 3: 14-19, 4: 11-13, Philippians 2: 5-6, 15, Colossians 1: 21-29, Hebrews 12: 9-10, 22-23, 2 Peter 1: 3-10, 1 John 3: 1-2, 9-10, 1 John 5: 1-2, 18-21, Revelation 2: 26-27, 3: 21 and 21: 7. See also Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5, 4: 38; Athanasius, Incarnation of the Word of God 54: 3, Against the Arians 1: 39, 3: 34; Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks 1, The Instructor 3: 1, The Stromata or Miscellanies 7: 10; Origen, Commentary of John 29: 27, Refutations 10: 30; and Augustine, On the Psalms 50: 2) --Arosophos

No where in any of those scriptures does it say that we get to have our own planets and create our own dinosaurs. On the contrary, in line with "inheriting all that God has" and "becoming Joint-heirs with Christ" these passages say that we will have all power and become "gods" but that doesn't neccissarily make us deity in the sense that the Father is. I agree that many Church leaders have said this in the past - and I think much of what they said was their interpretation of the scriptures, but not doctrine. What is clear is that we can be co-inheritors of exaltation - something our mortal minds do not comprehend. We are children of God, and as such are gods, but not deity. President Hinckley was criticised by many anti-Mormons when he told Mike Wallace that he understands the philosophy behind us becoming creator-gods, but that he doesn't think that the church teaches it. To me, that was funny, because those who realize that the doctrine is much more complex than how most culturally believe it, accepted his explanation, while others thought that is strange that President Hinckley would deny that. It was simply a clarification of doctrine.

Do I believe that God the Father is an exalted man? Yes. But this does not mean he was or was not once mortal. We are created in His image. I think it is also pretty safe to say, "God in an exalted being" or "God is an exalted man" from an "official" standpoint as correlated church manuals still carry these statements. We have to know this to understand what kind of being God is so we can have faith in him.

Now, this is different than what exactly it means to become like Him, or if he lived on another planet, or on this one, or anything else. That has not been emphasized, nor do I see much in the way of recent church manuals to support detailed answers to this second question, although I personally believe something to this effect.

I do not pretend to understand what either of these mean, but I do have my personal theories about this, based on the words of Joseph Smith, and the words, speculations and theories of other Latter-day sources - some which you mention above. I think i'm pretty safe in the above and below (From the gospel principles manual states (Gospel Principles, Unit Ten: Life After Death, 47: Exaltation, 301 [4])):

Our Heavenly Father is perfect. However, he is not jealous of his wisdom and perfection. He glories in the fact that it is possible for his children to become like him. He has said, “This is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76).

They will become gods.

They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family.

They will receive a fulness of joy.

They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge. President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to his commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:36).

What all that means, we are left to speculate, but we have some ideas. We are getting into some pretty deep doctrine that we don't know much about. What does it mean to become a god? We know we can't comprehend it - the blessings of exaltation are great - they are profound, they are wonderful. We have some ideas - some glimpses, but they are not spelled out in great detail. Christ qualified and became a god prior to mortality - so there are different ways to become a god than life experience and mortality on this earth. He did not need baptism, but did it as an example. The rest of us to become a god, baptism is required.

Now having said all of that, I personally think that much of the speculation within the church and mormon culture is correct, and some is not. And scriptural evidence is there, but not spelled out in great detail, but what is there is to help us to knwo what kind of being God is and how we can worship him and become like him. Hope this helps clarify the position as found in official church materials, not the cultural teachings of Mormonims. -Visorstuff 17:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You have mentioned some things I agree with and some I do not. In any case, this entry is not about official LDS Church doctrine. If you want to spell out the official LDS Church doctrine (or lack thereof) on this matter then I recommend that you make it a subsection of or paragraph within the section on Mormonism. Clearly, there is extensive evidence in Mormon tradition to support the explicit and frequently repeated teachings of the Mormon founder, Joseph Smith, regarding theosis, both of humanity and its creator. "Brethren 225,000 of you are here tonight. I suppose 225,000 of you may become gods. There seems to be plenty of space out there in the universe. And the Lord has proved that he knows how to do it. I think he could make, or probably have us help make, worlds for all of us, for every one of us 225,000." (President Spencer Kimball, Ensign, November 1975) "These children are now at play, making mud worlds, the time will come when some of these boys, through their faithfulness to the gospel, will progress and develop in knowledge, intelligence and power, in future eternities, until they shall be able to go out into space where there is unorganized matter and call together the necessary elements, and through their knowledge of and control over the laws and powers of nature, to organize matter into worlds on which their posterity may dwell, and over which they shall rule as gods." (Lorenzo Snow, Improvement Era, June 1919) "We believe there are many, very many, who have entered into power, glory, might, and dominion, and are gathering around them thrones, and have power to organize elements, and make worlds, and bring into existence intelligent beings in all their variety, who, if they are faithful and obedient to their calling and creation, will in their turn be exalted in [the] eternal kingdoms of the Gods" (Brigham Young, Unpublished General Conference Discourse, 8 October 1854). --Arosophos

Arosophos, you a a wonderful ability to list things, but I am not sure you have a complete understanding of either my words or the words of the prophets, the Savior or of scripture. First of all, many of your verses have nothing to do with the topic. D&C130:9-11 is irrelevant to the topic at hand. D&C 128:22-23 reads

"Brethren, shall we not go on in so great a cause? Go forward and not backward. Courage, brethren; and on, on to the victory! Let your hearts rejoice, and be exceedingly glad. Let the earth break forth into singing. Let the dead speak forth anthems of eternal praise to the King Immanuel, who hath ordained, before the world was, that which would enable us to redeem them out of their prison; for the prisoners shall go free.

23 Let the mountains shout for joy, and all ye valleys cry aloud; and all ye seas and dry lands tell the wonders of your Eternal King! And ye rivers, and brooks, and rills, flow down with gladness. Let the woods and all the trees of the field praise the Lord; and ye solid rocks weep for joy! And let the sun, moon, and the morning stars sing together, and let all the sons of God shout for joy! And let the eternal creations declare his name forever and ever! And again I say, how glorious is the voice we hear from heaven, proclaiming in our ears, glory, and salvation, and honor, and immortality, and eternal life; kingdoms, principalities, and powers!

It would appear that virtually all of your list has little or nothing to do with the concept of Theosis or Exaltation. If you are to understand anything that I have said, know that LDS theology never replaces the position of God the Father and His Son with any other being or beings. We will always be children of God. That we might become one with God and become gods as the Bible and other scripture says in numerous places, is believed to be a true principal; however, there is no explanation as to what that means. It is a sesational statement that we will be come gods and help to create worlds, but there is no explanation for how this happens and it what degree. There are simply too many things left out to gain any comprehension of what is stated. Before closing, please forgive me if I offend you; my intention was not to do so and I have spoken overly harsh in the first paragraph, but I haven't the time to soften right now and still get my point across. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You are simply incorrect, Storm Rider. Certainly, some of the verses are more subtle than others; however, some or so explicit as to demonstrate your intent to deceive. --Arosophos

Please explain which ones are so explicit. I have yet to find one that addresses EXALTATION or THEOSIS. They address nature of God, and a string of nonrelated issues. I dont' know why it is so difficult to just defend your position other than saying "you are wrong and I am right". That does nothing; it is not discussion. Would you please not make lists of scriptures and then say this supports your position; and then have the temerity to say after they are checked, "some are subtle". Just discuss and quit edit-warring. It is really not difficult. You may be an infrequent editor, but you are certainly not stupid. When there is disagreement we discuss the issue here, come to consensus and then edit the article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like himself." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 3: 93)

"You may now be inclined to say, 'We wish to hear the mysteries of the kingdoms of the Gods who have existed from eternity, and of all the kingdoms in which they will dwell; we desire to have these things portrayed to our understandings.' Allow me to inform you that you are in the midst of it all now, that you are in just as good a kingdom as you will ever attain to, from now to all eternity, unless you make it yourselves by the grace of God, by the will of God, which is a code of laws perfectly calculated to govern and control eternal matter." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 3: 336)

"He [God] . . . was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted being . . . It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God was once been a finite being." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7: 333)

"If there were a point where a man in his progression could not proceed any further, the very idea would throw a gloom over every intelligent and reflecting mind. God himself is increasing in knowledge, power and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end. It is just so with us." (Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses 6: 120)

"We shall go back to our Father and God, who is connected with one who is still farther back; and this Father is connected with one still farther back, and so on." (Heber C Kimbal, Journal of Discourses 5: 19)

"Our God is a natural man . . . where did he get his knowledge from? From his father, just as we get our knowledge from our earthly parents." (Heber C Kimbal, Journal of Discourses 8: 211)

"As man now is, God once was: as God now is, man may be." (Lorenzo Snow)

"The Gods who dwell in heaven . . . were once in a fallen state . . . they were exalted also, from fallen men to celestial Gods." (Orson Pratt, The Seer 23)

"Our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; He was begotten by a still more ancient Father; and so on from generation to generation, from one heavenly world to another." (Orson Pratt, The Seer 132)

"We believe in a God who is Himself progressive . . . whose perfection consists in eternal advancement . . . a Being who has attained His exalted state." (James Talmage, A Study of the Articles of Faith 430)

"God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar to that through which we are now passing. He became a God." (Milton R Hunter, The Gospel Through the Ages 104)

"There was a time when the Deity was much less powerful than He is today . . . He grew in experience and continued to grow until He attained the status of Godhood. In other words, He became a God by absolute obedience." (Milton R Hunter, The Gospel Through the Ages 114-115)

"God . . . is a personal Being, a holy and exalted man . . . an anthropomorphic entity." (Bruce R McConkie, Mormon Doctrine 250)

"As the Prophet [Joseph Smith] also taught, 'there is a God above the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ'." (Bruce R McConkie, Mormon Doctrine 322)

"God himself, the Father of us all, is a glorious, exalted, immortal, resurrected man." (Bruce R McConkie, Mormon Doctrine 642-643)

"God is an exalted man . . . our Father in Heaven at one time passed through a life and death and is an exalted man . . . The Prophet [Joseph Smith] taught that our Father had a Father and so on . . . promises are made to us that we may become like him." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1: 10-12)

Most importantly, see the following:

See Joseph Smith “King Follet Discourse” (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses 6: 1-11 or Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 342-361)

See Joseph Smith on the Plurality of Gods (Joseph Smith, Documentary History of the Church 6: 473-479 or Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 369-376)

"They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given – That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power; And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true. They are they who are the church of the Firstborn. They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things – They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory; And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son. Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God." (Joseph Smith, Doctrine and Covenants 76: 51-58)

"And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God. And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them – Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths – then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them." (Joseph Smith, Doctrine and Covenants 132: 18-20)

Storm Rider, it seems to me that you are either shy of Mormon tradition or are not well acquainted with it. It is utterly obvious to scholars of Mormon history that theosis and exaltation have been taught repeatedly and extensively by Mormon authorities. There is perhaps nothing more remarkably characteristic of Mormon theology than these doctrines. In any case, this section is not about you alone. It is about Mormonism. That includes MANY Mormons that evidently think quite differently from you. I recommend you add a disclaimer to the section. I'm not here to censor, but to provide access to information -- including perspectives with which I disagree. --Arosophos

The objective is to portray LDS doctrine. Whether we agree with it or not is a personal issue and has not place here on WIkipedia; that would also apply to your personal beliefs and feelings. Further, my personal feelings have nothing to do with this article and please do not assume that you know them; it serves no purpose; you know what that say about making assuming anything.

Not once, to my knowledge has there been any attempt to squash the concept of theosis in Mormonism. However, the topic is Theosis and not the nature of God or any of the other areas in which you attempt to take this section in the article. What is clear is that beyond the concept of exaltation there is not clarification in LDS doctrine or theology. We simply do not know what it means to create worlds. The statements of leaders and individuals does not mean it is doctrine; please do not attempt to classify it as such. What we do know is that the Bible tells us we will be joint-heirs with Christ. Some Mormon leaders have attempted to explain that just as the scriptures explain it; we are gods or will be gods. Some have further alluded that this will include particiapting in a creative process; but without any explanation. What is certain is that LDS doctrine does not define Heaven as static. The writings of many early Christian church fathers supported this concept of becoming gods, but none of them explained it either. As I asked above; what does it mean to be one with God?

This is an area where some individuals love to make it as sensational as possible; however, few understand the quotes they use. For instance; who are the angels Joseph is talking about? There a number of questoins that could be asked, but they are not germane to this topic.

I would caution you about thinking you are the fount of information for Wikipedia. Quotes in great quantity are not appropriate; just link to it. If you need to point you to policy, I would be more than happy to do so. We often see those who feel they are the white knight riding to save the world from the evils of LDS theology; however, it plays badly here. Get down off the high horse and focus on topics, enter into discussion, and seek cooperative editing. Edit warring and contant reverts are disruptive and detrimental to Wikipedia. Given your few edits; I assume that you are not an expert yet on policy. I hate quoting policy, but I strive to edit within its bounds and assist in my capacity to help others.

In closing this is a section on LDS doctrine, not the quotes of leaders that have not been adopted as doctrine. It never ceases to amaze me how that is done; mostly by nonMormons, but Mormons do it also. There is a differnce between doctrine and theology. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The objective is NOT to portrary LDS Church doctrine. The objective is to present Mormonism, which includes (but is not exhaustively described by) official LDS Church doctrine. I think you should write about the lack of clarification in LDS Church doctrine, without attempting to erase the overwhelming evidence in the Mormon tradition of faith in recurrent theosis. There is certainly room on the page for both. Furthermore, whether you feel to understand the teachings of Joseph or not, whether you think they are sensational or not, and whether you feel they are speculative or not, they nonetheless are strongly representative of Mormonism. I certainly do not presume to be the fount of knowledge for Wikipedia, which is a charge that is quite ironic coming from you; however, I am quite confident that theosis as it is being described here is authentically Mormon. That's not to say that individual Mormons will not disagree. That's fine. Let's say that. Let's not, however, censor the other authentic Mormons, as you appear to be attempting to do. --Arosophos

By the way, Storm Rider, the first two paragraphs of the Mormon section are, from an official LDS Church doctrine perspective, quite as speculative and unsupported as the text you want to remove. It seems that the only thing we could say about LDS Church doctrine is that it suggests theosis, without specifying details. But that's the point! Mormonism, in its best form, has never been about creeds. We sometimes try to make it that way, but fortunately there has remained some amount of resistence to that. However, that does not mean we should not attempt accurately to describe the religious tradition to readers of the article. Arosophos 12:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Stormrider - thanks for leaving at least part of the quote from Joseph Smith on the page. it really belongs there. It's very clear from the King Follet sermon that Joseph Smith did intend to teach that God was once a man, who became God, and thet humans were capable of reaching the same status. It's not sensationalism like you've insiste, unless you want to say church history itself is sensationalism. Some reference to this sermon really needs to stay there, or if not there, at least over at Exaltation: Mormonism. Alienburrito 22:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

We are not disagreeing on what Joseph Smith taught; we are disagreeing on the appropriateness of the subject given the topic of this article. The nature of God has nothing to do with Theosis.

That is one of the shortcomings of the LDS religion when others attempt to explain it. The doctrine of the church is found in its scriptures: Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. It is also appropritae to say that leaders of the church have added clarification of scripture. Others attempt to define what Mormons believe by what things were said by leaders at funerals, sermons, or talks. Much of this may enter into theology, but not doctrine. You will hear the comment "become gods and create worlds", etc. Though there is scripture that discusses eternal increase; we have no scripture that explains this process and to what degree we will participate. What we do know is what the scriptures say, exaltation is the perfect union with both the Son and the Father; to dwell eternally in their presence. That union is defined as becoming a co-inheritor with Jesus. Though this is biblical and LDS take it literally, maintstream Christianity does not generally address the issue. Most Christians are very uncomforable with the topic of Theosis; it is simply unknown to them. The Orthodox church has a rich history of dedication to holiness and they have a much stronger tradition than the western church. Protestants, in general, simply ignore the concept. What I find surprising is that so many want to deny being co-inheritors with Christ. They limit the term to not really be co-inheritors; yet many church fathers, Athanasius being one of many, were very clear that a union with God is real. LDS support that statement fully and compeltely. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that it's true that the Mormon view of deification has nothing to do with the nature of God. But, it has everything to do with the Orthodox view:

Here we see the contrast between the "One-in-substance" of Father and Son and the mere participation in the Divine Fulness which, in various measures, is given to His creatures. The Son is the Father's Word and Wisdom, and thereby His illuminating and deifying power,—not alien, but one in substance with Him, for by partaking of Him we partake of the Father to whom He belongs. Wherefore, if He, too, Himself were from participation and not from the Father, His substantial Godhead and Image, He could not deify, as needing deification Himself. For, as to one who possesses only from participation, even what he has is not his own, but the giver's, and what he has received is barely the grace sufficient for himself. (Athanasius, On Councils held at Ariminum and Seleucia)

— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The real reason they beleive soemthing they dont know what it is

The real reason for the reference to it being undefined is the LDS Church's policy of dancing around controversial doctrines. If you read the King FOllet sermon at http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm (hosted at Brigham Young U mind you), you'll see that the founder of the Mormon Church, Joseph Smith, taught that God was once a man, lived on an earth, and progressed to the status of deity. He also taught that we as his literal ofspring may also progress to the status of deity and populate our own worlds with our own children. They know as well as anyone that if this was the 1st thing out of the missionaries' mouths, the church would be lucky to have 50 members, instead of the 8million+ they currently have. This is one of the more extreme teachings of the church, of course. There are other very unusual teachings that would turn off many prospective members. A good example is their temple endowment. Members are encouraged to go to the temple to receive their endowments (the term is a referens to being endowed with power from on high). At best, they will tell you that in the temple they learn certain things that enable them to pass the angels that stand as guards at the gates of the Celestial Kingdom, as well as be sealed to their families for eternity, and to do these same things for their dead relatives. WHen it boils down to it, the endowment is about learning hand signs and secret handshakes and passwords, many of which appear to be stolen from Freemasonry. Up until a few years ago there weere also penalties wehre they were made to promise that they would rather have their throats slit rather than reveal the contents of the ritual. That was slowly toned down over the years from specifically saying that they would rather have their throat slit, to just drawing the thumb across the throat from ear to ear, to being completely eliminated in the early 90s. For reference, there are recordings made surepeticiously in one of their temples on the net as well as stranscripts - see http://www.lds-temple.org Alienburrito 00:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

After you make an edit it is best to sign your post by typing four tildes "~". First, the King Follet discourse was given by Joseph Smith at a funeral. It focuses on the nature of God and the purpose of creation. The topic of this article is THEOSIS; not the nature of God.

What you are seeking to do is sensationalize LDS beliefs. Your edits say nothing that the article did not already say; except you seek to go off topic and sensationalize what are LDS beliefs. LDS believe the purpose of creation is not the desire of God to have a flock of sycophants that spend eternity singing his praises. In LDS theology, it is believed that God created his children for a purpose; often stated as "to bring to pass the eternal life and immortality of man". Through Jesus Christ we become co-inheritors. LDS believe that means we inherit what Jesus inherits.

To sensationalize beliefs is POV and not acceptable. It would be similar to saying that orthodox Christians are cannibals that eat the flesh and drink the blood of their God every week. That is an accurate statement, but its tone and perspective are meant to demean, deride, and belittle the sacred. I caution you that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and it is not a place to grind an axe. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what is it that you want to say that is not already said in the this article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I am seaking to explain exactly what the lds beleive about the idea of exaltation. I'm sorry you chose to spin that as sensationalism. And frankly, if you read the king follet sermon, you'll realize that the LDS view of the nature of God is essential to their concept of exaltation. And both are essential to why they dance around the issue to outsiders. Stormrider, your comments are blatalty missrepresenting my comments, and are unnacceptable.Alienburrito 00:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

And I don't think i've said anything that adds much to the actuall article, other than perhaps clarify why the LDS tend to say thinjgs like "the concept is not clearly defined" Alienburrito 00:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

Thank you for your response. Please do not confuse the issue; you were spinning and attempting to sensationalize the concept of theosis in the LDS religion. The King Follet discourse is not part of the canon of the LDS church or part of its doctrine; however, it would be appropriate to say that some of its principles are part of LDS theology.

The nature of God has nothing to do with the LDS concept of exaltation. The church teaches that God the Father allows his children to progress eternally. We can progress first and only through Jesus Christ. What Jesus Christ offers all of his followers is to be co-inheritors. LDS describe that concept as becoming gods; you might want to do a search in the Bible for the number of times humanity is called sons of God or simply gods. At no time does LDS theology or certainly its doctrine teach that we will become equal to God. He is our God and will be our God for all eternity; the concept of exaltation is complete union with Him and to live eternally in His presence.

I would agree; your addition added nothing to the article and that is the reason I reject it. Everything you stated is already stated; however, you chose to use sensational language very common on rather low-quality anti-Mormon websites. To go further than what LDS scripture says is to go further than the church states as doctrine. Let's just stick with doctrine and not supposition or areas where there has not been perfect clarity. My edits are doctrinal. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please move the Mormonism part to another section.

The Eastern Christian doctrine of theosis and the Mormon idea of 'exaltation' or whatever you want to call it are totally different.

Put them both in a disambiguation section if you have to, but they really MUST be split out.

72.66.58.62 05:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)An Orthodox Christian

That actually sounds pretty fair to me. Can we have a reference at the bottom of the article akin to "see also: Exaltation:Mormonism" ? Alienburrito 22:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

Frankly - the more I see stormrider's extremely biased pro-mormon edits on this page, the more I think it's a good idea to move Mormon angle out of here, forget the disambiguation, but have a small entry in the "see also section". Those Opposed? Those in Favor? Be back tomorrow night to check the votes. Alienburrito 06:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

This is a 4th warning about personal attacks. FOCUS on the article and its content and not on other editors. Just because another editor conflicts with your OPINION does not mean it is POV, it means you have an opinion and an axe to grind. What is most interesting is that a non-Mormon tries to tell a LDS what they believe and the accuses them of POV editing because the LDS says their opinion is wrong. I wonder how my Catholic friends would feel when a Southern Baptist tries to tell them what they believe; or for that matter when I try to tell you that you do not know what you believe. You need to start a personal blog; this is not the place for your soapbox. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Stormrider - you forget who you're talking to. That i'm from an LDS background too. You also forget that you'be blatantly refered to a direct quote from an LDS prophet as "sensational" - in the article itself - not in the comments. You're not refering to coments on the quote as sentational, but the quote itself, and saying its common in antimormon liturature. That's blatant spin, and does not belong in the article itself. If you cant be honest about this, please keep your warnings to yourself. Alienburrito 06:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

Alien, I think those comments were made before our last conversation on the Exaltation article. You may recall that on this page I have attempted to focus the comments strictly to the concept of theosis without going into the nature of God. I believe the quote you are adamant on including goes beyond the topic. I would prefer not to have it in this article at all. Most of the edits I last made were borne of frustration with not being able to arrive at a concensus.

This section should not outgrow its importance. It should be kept concise and succinct. It certainly should not evolve into the biggest section in the article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok - sounds fair. I admit to not having checked the discussion for a while. Honestly though - i don't get the "sensational" reference applied to just a direct quote from Joseph Smith - if it was paraphrased a certain way, you could call it sensational. Alienburrito 07:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

By the way, I do not think it really belongs here either, the more I think about it, other than perhaps a passing reference because the 2 concepts are sometimes linked, partially because of the term "deification" being used as a synonym for theosis. If its alright with you, I think I'm gonna edit the LDS section to say that sometimes the 2 concepts are linked, and cite FAIR's article, and drop the rest - that ok with you? Alienburrito 07:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)aleinburrito

The biggest reason for a section on the LDS position is because, IMHO, that it truly belongs here. When St. Athanasius wrote, "The Son of God became man, that we might become God.", he could not have stated an LDS position any more clearly than Joseph Smith. The patristic fathers have numerous quotes that address this belief and many of them could have been stated by a LDS today.

I think what is needed is a concise statement of LDS belief. I really do think that is what the section looked like prior to the addition of the quote from Joseph Smith. Regardless, I would strongly disagree with the ANON who did not sign his edit that suggested they be broken out.

I hope the edit I made is what you intended; is it? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Theosis is an implication of the Nicene doctrine: and this is what is meant by Athanasius. Consequently, the Mormon view is at a pole opposite to theosis, in the sense that it is at a pole opposite to the faith which underlies it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I really don't have a horse in this race, but come on. If you are going to compare christian doctrines to mormon doctrines, you may as well find the closest corallary in Bhudism. Flame on, but it is really unscholarly to lump Mormonism in with orthodox christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.38.143 (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

New section on Christian Universalist views

A lot of Christians who believe in Universal Reconciliation also believe in a version of Theosis, which they often call "Manifest Sonship." This idea came out of the Latter Rain Movement in Charismatic Christianity and has gained support in the Christian Universalist movement in general. It is significant and deserves to be mentioned in this article, so I added a brief section with some references. Shiningdove (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

^ History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 302-317,

[1] History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 302-317,

[1]