Christians of a more theologically traditional bent are significantly different in belief and definition on all four of those points. Ontologically. Specially. Theologically. Soteriologically. And more.

I don’t deny theosis as a tangential Christian doctrine. One could even call it approaching semi central depending on how the definition, scope and goals are framed. (The nuances amount to distinct and dividing differences. See my last paragraph.)

My disagreement is with the same term (theosis) being used by some LDS while completely shaking up the definitions and scope. The traditional nature, scope, and goal of theosis is radically different than the “LDS theosis.” (Assuming it is true the conventional LDS doctrine is accurate and not as tangential as it is for trad. Christian theology.)

It is very intellectually dubious for LDS apologists like Peterson to argue for ancient historicity of “LDS theosis” without clearly defining the differences. Once these fundamental differences are outlined and terms defined as they’ve been dominantly defined within tradition — remember, you will always have the fringe — the argument for early church kinship is over. (See the first sentence.)

Trad. Christian theosis, when it grows more theologically central, and moderate, is more a matter of considering what it meant for God (a Spirit) to incarnate as man, and to consider how man is ultimately elevated to share and mirror in the Glory of God as His redeemed and ultimately renewed creation (joint heirship). As this belief is (and has been) most embraced the term “theosis” to refer to this process of God’s ultimate redemption of mankind has grown out of fashion. It is a term believed to be too easily misinterpreted.

Man deified has never been any man or woman becoming a God is his/her own sphere of creationary governance and godhood as the LDS doctrine popularly nuances. The traditional Christian doctrines are more like mankind ultimately absorbed, shadowed, completed, submissive, consumed, in worship, at one, in the Glory of the God who has always been God. Where theosis was traditionally most fringe it was also very gnostic (see Origin) and ultimately considered heretical — even less similar of a position to LDS belief than the more moderate traditional interpretations.

Respectfully,
JfQ

Ernst Benz and Theosis:
The German Protestant church historian, Ernst Benz, speaks of this doctrine as a Christian doctrine, and says:
“One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the Ancient Church than the precursors of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin were, who considered the thought of such a substantial connection between God and man as the heresy, par excellence.” (Ernst W. Benz, “Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God,” in Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian Parallels, ed. Truman G. Madsen, Religious Studies Center, BYU, Provo, UT, 1978, pp. 215-216, as cited by Peterson and Ricks, 1992, p. 80.)

Non-LDS church historian Ernst Benz insisted that the doctrine of deification was present in the early Church, and pointed out a potential risk for those who do not understand it:
Now this idea of deification could give rise to a misunderstanding—namely, that it leads to a blasphemous self-aggrandizement of man. If that were the case, then mysticism would, in fact, be the sublimist, most spiritualized form of egoism. But the concept of imago dei, in the Christian understanding of the term, precisely does not aspire to awaken in man a consciousness of his own divinity, but attempts to have him recognize the image of God in his neighbor. Here the powerful words of Jesus in Matt. 25:21–26 are appropriate and connected by the church fathers to imago dei… Hence, the concept of imago dei does not lead toward self-aggrandizement but rather toward charity as the true and actual form of God’s love, for the simple reason that in one’s neighbor the image of God, the Lord himself, confronts us. The love of God should be fulfilled in the love toward him in whom God himself is mirrored, in one’s neighbor. Thus, in the last analysis, the concept of imago dei is the key to the fundamental law of the gospel—”Thou shalt love . . . God . . . and thy neighbor as thyself” (Luke 10:27)—since one should view one’s neighbor with an eye to the image that God has engraven upon him and to the promise that he has given regarding him.[
(Ernst W. Benz, "Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God," in Truman G. Madsen (editor), Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian parallels : papers delivered at the Religious Studies Center symposium, Brigham Young University, March 10-11, 1978 (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center , Brigham Young University and Bookcraft, 1978), 215–216. ISBN 0884943585. Reprinted in Ernst Benz, "Imago dei: Man as the Image of God," FARMS Review 17/1 (2005): 223–254. off-site PDF link Note: Benz misunderstands some aspects of LDS doctrine, but his sketch of the relevance of theosis for Christianity in general, and Joseph Smith's implementation of it, is worthwhile.)

Modern Christian exegesis
The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology describes "deification" thusly:
Deification (Greek Theosis) is for orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, according to the Bible, is ‘made in the image and likeness of God’...it is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become God by grace. This doctrine is based on many passages of both O.T. and N.T. (Ps. 82: (81) .6; 2_Pet. 1:4), and it is essentially the teaching both of St. Paul, though he tends to use the language of filial adoption (Rom. 8:9-17, Gal. 4:5-7) and the fourth gospel (John 17:21-23). (Alan Richardson (editor), The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology (Westminster: John Knox Press, 1983).)
Joseph Fitzmyer wrote:
The language of 2 Peter is taken up by St. Irenaeus, in his famous phrase, ‘if the Word has been made man, it is so that men may be made gods; (adv. Haer v, pref.), And becomes the standard in Greek theology. In the fourth century St. Athanasius repeats Irenaeus almost word for word, and in the fifth century St. Cyril of Alexandria says that we shall become sons ‘by participation’ (Greek methexis). Deification is the central idea in the spirituality of St. Maximus the confessor, for whom the doctrine is corollary of the incarnation: ‘deification, briefly, is the encompassing and fulfillment of all times and ages’,...and St. Symeon the new theologian at the end of the tenth century writes, ‘he who is God by nature converses with those whom he has made gods by grace, as a friend converses with his friends, face to face...’
Finally, it should be noted that deification does not mean absorption into God, since the deified creature remains itself and distinct. It is the whole human being, body and soul, who is transfigured in the spirit into the likeness of the divine nature, and deification is the goal of every Christian. (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Pauline Theology: a brief sketch (Prentice-Hall, 1967), 42. AISN B0006BQTCQ.)
According to Christian scholar G.L. Prestige, the ancient Christians “taught that the destiny of man was to become like God, and even to become deified.” (G.L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought (London Press, 1956), 73.)
William R. Inge, Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote:
"God became man, that we might become God" was a commonplace of doctrinal theology at least until the time of Augustine, and that "deification holds a very large place in the writings of the fathers...We find it in Irenaeus as well as in Clement, in Athanasius as well in Gregory of Nysee. St. Augustine was no more afraid of deificari in Latin than Origen of apotheosis in Greek...To modern ears the word deification sounds not only strange but arrogant and shocking. (William Ralph Inge, Christian Mysticism (London, Metheun & Co., 1948[1899]), 13, 356.)
Yet, these “arrogant and shocking” doctrines were clearly held by early Christians!
This view of the early Christians’ doctrines is not unique to the Latter-day Saints. Many modern Christian writers have recognized the same doctrines. If the critics do not wish to embrace these ancient doctrines, that is their privilege, but they cannot logically claim that such doctrines are not “Christian.” One might fairly ask why modern Christians do not believe that which the ancient Christians insisted upon?

Catholics and Theosis or Deification
On becoming Gods and Goddesses:
Daniel Peterson shares an experience of those at the LDS Maxwell Institute (Ancient Studies)
We were able to meet also with Father Farina, the prefect of the Vatican Apostolic Library, regarding a project to digitize a portion of its very fine collection of Syriac materials. It seems that there are no insuperable obstacles to such a project. Neither the prefect nor his ecclesiastical superiors—thanks to a remarkable series of contacts and experiences—appear to have any objection to admitting a group of Mormon scholars to their collection and jointly publishing an electronic selection of their manuscripts with Brigham Young University. At this point, I would like you to consider for just a second how very noteworthy that is.
Bishop Soro hopes that any work that we do with the Vatican on a compact disk will prove to be only the beginning. And, in fact, others at the Vatican have suggested that we move beyond their Syriac collection to their vast wealth of Greek biblical manuscripts. Bishop Soro has now been to BYU on two different occasions and has learned a bit about Latter-day Saint beliefs. During our time with him in Rome, he suggested a theme for a second Vatican-based compact disk: “We could do something,” he said, “about the deification of human beings. Your people would be interested in that, wouldn’t they?” He remarked that his encounters with Mormons had resensitized him to the former prominence of that doctrine in his own very old tradition. He had actually delivered a sermon on the topic, which he said was one of the best received sermons he had ever given.
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=124

I’m okay with Mormons finding beauty in their doctrine or belief even as “tangential” as it may truly be. But there is not a persuasive historical Christian complement to (in my view) the distinct flavor it has taken in LDS metadoctrine. The latter is really borne of Jopseph Smith, and even more profoundly, how some LDS leaders have interepreted Smith’s teachings after his death. Indeed, I would recommend the interested reader to study the topic more deeply if they think this is a foundational and “lost” trad. Christian doctrine.

***Based on what I hear each Sunday — this is something Mormons are counting on in the hereafter — and almost drives their devotion to the church.***

I guess I still am amazed that even one of our chief theologians doesn’t stand up boldly and say, “Absolutely! That teaching is central to our Plan of Happiness doctrine!!!”Let me be clear, though — I don’t think he’s being dishonest here — I just think that he’s showing some discomfort, and maybe even some confusion about the teaching that feels dissonant to me having been raised in the church.”
(closed quote)

Being LDS my whole life…I wonder what you mean by: “based on what I hear each Sunday?” And also “this is something Mormons are counting on in the hereafter — and almost drives their devotion to the church?”

I don’t hear of it in Church near as much as I think we should. And because of that I doubt it is the reason it drives our devotion to the church. What drives our devotion to the Church is that Jesus Christ is our Savior and Redeemer and what Joseph Smith said describes it best:

“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.” ~~Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr.
http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/?cid=wpats1

I can tell you that I am perfectly comfortable with this doctrine and it is one of the most beautiful doctrines know to mankind. If others do not understand it is the their failing as I believe many traditional Christians have expressed views such as C.S. Lewis and Marin Luther about this doctrine which is called Theosis. It’s just that this doctrine is not known to Traditional Christians and they are the ones who are uncomfortable with it and even that they once had this belief of becoming like God. The Eastern Orthodox Church still teaches Theosis. So Joseph Smith told it plainly that traditional Christians, because of all of the schisms have lost plain and precious truths. I do see Biblical Scholars coming back to these teachings and views are starting to change.

Good topics to Google: Theosis, deification

I am looking forward to further posts on this topic. There were at least three things in this podcast that stuck out to me that would just not have been acceptable to say a decade or two ago. The one that I thought was the funniest was right at the end; Millet says, “We’re only halfway to Nicaea.” By that he meant that if you multiply the age of the LDS church by two you get roughly the number of years between Christ and the council of Nicaea. This is ironic because Nicaea defines orthodox Christian beliefs, so by saying we are half way to Nicaea, you could (ironically) interpret it to mean that we are in the process of losing our distinct Mormon beliefs and are half way to orthodoxy. Note, I KNOW he didn’t mean that, I just found it ironic because many in the bloggernaccle fear just that.

I actually had a similar thought on this, but didn’t want to share it. But thank you for putting it so well that it almost makes sense to me now. (Better than I would have said it.)

I was thinking about the idea that time is created by the big bang the other day. Thus if God created the big bang, God in fact does create time and exists outside of time. This would seem to go along with your speculation well, or at least not contradict it.

I thought of the idea of God having once been a man in a different universe (major speculation here) with it’s own time and space. If this is the case, how many years ago was God a man? There would in fact be no number of years you could go back to when God was a man. For all intents and purposes (from our time that is) God has Eternally been God. It’s paradoxical, but correct.

In other words, according to physics, it would be theorectically possible for God to have once been a man and for there to never have been a time (in our time) he was a man. (of course this violates other laws of physics, like the idea that two universes can’t interact… but you get the picture. He is God, after all. I have to assume He has a way past little problems like physics.)

That’s how I read it, but I can’t prove it, and it is mostly speculation. I do think that there is a very real (and canonical) difference between Time and Eternity, but how it works is mostly speculation. But I think it is a very good guess.

http://lattedaysaints.com/?p=242 …

Here is a link to the BCC post: http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2008/01/god-once-was/#more-3468

I’m going to cite an excerpt, to draw attention:

Decades ago Joseph Fielding Smith, doctrinal grand master, wrote in his famous question and answer section of the Improvement Era:

Question: “Will you kindly explain these two expressions, ‘We know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting,’ and ‘As man is, God was; as God is man may become.’ “

Answer: “Everlasting to everlasting” means from the eternity past to the eternity future as far as man’s understanding is concerned, from the pre-existence through the temporal (mortal) life unto the eternity following the resurrection. The Savior said:

. . . The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things so ever he doeth, these also doeth the Son like wise. (John 5:19.)

From this remark we gather that the Son was doing what the Father had done before him. However, so far as the Father is concerned, we will leave that until we receive further knowledge, when and if we become glorified in his kingdom. So we will deal with this subject in relation to the Son, Jesus Christ. (1)

http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2008/01/god-once-was/

Here is my take. The Mormon Church, contrary to popular belief, isn’t a giant mass of people that all believe the same. There are definitely “literalist” amongst us that want to take every word stated by Joseph Smith (or another prophet) and claim it’s all a revelation. “Minimalist” Mormons tend to hold to the canon and consider everything at least “challengeable.” (Though generally also hold to a very literal point of view and perhaps put great value on non-canon.)

It’s interesting to see Joseph Field Smith, who I would have had pegged as a literalist Mormon (whereas I see President Hinckley as being in the more minimalist camp) also allowed for the minimalist point of view in his response. Perhaps there is more harmony between the views after all.

(My apologies for inventing labels. Of course in real life no one ever fits a label perfectly.)

That is only one aspect of the quotes the people are asking about, but that is all we give them and often in an ambiguous way so that it can easily be misconstrued to mean we are denying we know anything about the nature of God. Millet did a better job than usual, but he still seemed defensive in the text.

He’s right, we don’t know anything about the progression of our God and those details are not important in our doctrines. But folks want to know if we believe a God that is or has progressed from something less than His current state. Aside from the details, is that Mormon doctrine? The answer is absolutely YES if you ask Joseph Smith. If you ask any church representative today, who even knows anymore?

My heart exclaimed, All these bear testimony and bespeak an omnipotent and omnipresent power, a Being who maketh laws and decreeth and bindeth all things in their bounds, who filleth eternity, who was and is and will be from all eternity to eternity.

It is interesting that this quote comes from 1832, while the one you cited comes from the 1840s. It’s also interesting that the manual doesn’t do anything to reconcile these quotes, or even notice that they are contradictory.

Doc says: “Bruce,Deification is central in its place revealing the purpose of life, man’s origin and destiny. I think the scriptures would have a lot more of it if people weren’t so afraid of it. It seems to me God won’t reveal mysteries to people who cannot or will not accept them”

Whoa! My apologies but I must have missed something. By “this doctrine” I only meant God once having been a man, not us becoming Divine (i.e. gods.) I apologize for any confusion I might have caused. The idea that we become gods *is* central to our beliefs, exactly as John states in his response to me.

The idea that God was once a man is what I meant was tangential to our beliefs. (I mean from the point of view I was trying to express, which is my own.) That’s the part not found in the canon. Us becoming gods *is* found in the canon.

Anyhow, if you thought I said that becoming gods wasn’t central, please rip that part out of your memory because that certainly wasn’t what I meant.

I just read it all over again, and I’m still confused. Is there anything above where Millet denies that we can become gods? Did he call that tangential? Here is the quote of the question he was responding to: “this understanding of God is a product of something like a spiritual evolution of God who was once a man and moved into this very different kind of being”

Did I misunderstand? Sorry, I know we all bring our own prejudices with us when we attempt to understand what people are syaing. I was thoroughly convinced that Millet was only calling the idea that “God was once a man” tangential. If he meant it the other way around then I’ll be the first to call him wrong. If you want, I’ll email him and ask him to clarify what he meant. I can usually get BYU professors to respond to me. Had a nice long chat with Richard Lloyd Anderson once.

Update: Just realized Doc said about the same thing.

John,
Where did Millet or anyone say we don’t become Gods? I believe that is the entire point I was trying to make. God as Man-nebulous, unclarified concept. Man to become as God- settled doctrine, and as near as I can tell the capstone of Joseph’s restoration, seeing as how he was taken soon after. History seems to go along with the idea of us not being ready to accept certain truths. To be honest, I don’t know that more understanding in details would spiritually enrich anyone more than the sermon on the mount or basic teachings of Christ. So I do empathize with those who would claim it is not central to faith. Praxis is a prerequisite to gaining light and knowledge. Theology without Christian charity, love and other godlike attributes is really an empty shell. I would also add- believing in man becoming God- doctrine not everyone can stomach, few if any can totally comprehend, but they are still welcome in Church.

John Dehlin- I do think it can promote dissonance when we are told 2 opposite things at the same time and we should have further clarification. I completely agree that it would be fair.

Doc- excellent point made. I couldnt say it better.

NM Tony – I see exactly what you are saying and have felt the same way at times. It has caused me to change my perspective on the church but I felt that I could stay with resolving things. But friends of mine I know havent been able to. Its a difficult one.

WestBerkeleyFlats- I appreciate your addition to the boards and your perspective, but I must agree with Jeff Spector that your comments are negative and hypercritical. I hope that you can continue to comment on the posts in a more constructive manner. I personally agree with you on the solipsism of the things he has said. But I think cultural differences needed to be taken into account along with Millet’s background & religious perspective. A little more tolerance would be a good thing…

John D.,

I think these are important questions. In fact, these very questions, in part, are what led me to disbelief. There is, it seems, this continuous claim that we receive revelation every six months by way of General Conference. Yet, all I ever hear are the same themes given by different speakers using different words; it is nothing new or inspiring. I found nothing of value and nothing new coming from these “inspired” leaders.

At the risk of sounding more cynical, I think I understand the reasoning behind not giving “further light and knowledge.” It is out of fear, not for their own lives, but for the infrastructure. Erroneous “revelations” seem to have been the bane of several prophets and apostles (e.g. Adam-God, polygamy, blood atonement, etc.) and thorn in the church’s side. Especially in a day and age where media coverage is all-invasive, I think the leader may be a bit revelation-shy–especially with the interpretations of how revelation is received: is it a voice, a feeling, a sudden realization, all the above? As has been seen over the last century, more “worldly” knowledge is quickly and accurately filling in the God of the Gaps, leaving little over which a prophet can claim special authority.

All I’m saying is….there are enough Mormons (in my experience) that think it is theologically central (definitely over 1/2 of the active Mormons I know) — that it would be nice for church leaders to officially clarify that it is so — and perhaps stop teaching it in the manuals.

Isn’t that fair–that we not be led to believe that we will become Gods someday if we (meaning church leadership) are not quite sure anymore?

I find it interesting that you see this doctrine as absolutely central. If it were, why isn’t it in the scriptures? This concept has never been “canonical” (i.e. it’s not in the canon.) But I agree with Stephen E. Robinson that it’s wide spread enough that it became “pseudo-canonical” so to speak. But Millet doesn’t represent a change, or at least not a recent one. (I’m open to the possibility that it is a change in thinking, but it must be old enough that I, more or less, “grew up with it.”)

I have always agreed with Millet that it’s theologically tangential. I’ve talked with many many Mormons that agree. It’s very wide spread and that thinking has been around. I don’t care if it even turns out to be a mere speculation on Joseph Smith’s part and not true at all. It’s not in the canon, so I have to accept this possibility, no matter how much sense the doctrine makes to me. (Though I doubt that it’s a mere speculation very much.)

I do personally believe God was once a man in some sense or other, but I am unwilling to assume it’s in the full mortal sense that non-Mormons cast it. (I.e. He was as sinful man living on another planet in the universe a long time ago.)

I don’t claim to know what “man” means in this context. It should be obvious by now that I have a current speculation, subject to change as I have a whim to do so, that it’s a “divine man” sort of thing, like Jesus (and as Joseph Smith seems to imply in the KFD.) I truly believe Jesus was a “man” so I see nothing problematic in the slightest with the idea that the Father had a mortal experience like Jesus did. I’m convinced this is not how those outside the Church envision Mormons as believing this. I am just as convinced that their view of Mormons, while probably representative of some Mormons, is not representative of many or even most Mormons. I don’t want to play games with semantics over “man” here but there is clearly different ways people understand this term when reading the KFD and their view of that word plays a huge roll on how they interpret Joseph’s teachings.