Romney vs. Evangelicals?

February 6, 2012 | Filed under 2012 Presidential Race,Mitt Romney | Posted by David Robertson

What are we to make of Romney’s lack of support among so-called “evangelicals”?

Sean Trende is the senior elections analyst at RealClearPolitics. He has written an article titled A Demographic Divide: Could Evangelicals Block Romney?

After explaining the number crunching that he engaged in, Trende describes what he learned:

. . . we see that a large portion of the GOP fight can be explained very well using only demographic variables. This is what I believe Cost picked up on when he found that northern conservatives voted for Romney, while southern conservatives voted against him. In the north, the conservatives tend to be non-evangelical. In the south, they tend to be evangelical (in Florida, they’re split).
Why this is the case is open to interpretation. The simplest answer is anti-Mormon bias, but that seems a bit too easy. After all, the alternatives are a pair of Catholics. The other possibility — and this is a problem with regression — is that religion could be a stand-in for ideology, and that, regardless of self-identification, a self-described conservative evangelical Republican is significantly to the right of a self-described conservative who is non-evangelical. Or it could be some third possibility: Perhaps evangelicals and non-evangelicals alike in heavily evangelical counties vote against Romney for an additional reason.

Now, let’s consider the possible reason for the evangelical opposition to Romney.

The simplest answer is anti-Mormon bias, but that seems a bit too easy. After all, the alternatives are a pair of Catholics.

Here Trende demonstrates his lack of knowledge about the theological differences between self-described evangelicals and Romney.

Evangelicals and Catholics share a common theology, in which there is only one God who exists, only one God who has ever existed, and only one God who will ever exist. According to this shared theology, the one and only God is identified in the Bible by several names, such as El Elyon and Yahweh. According to this shared theology, the one and only God has revealed Himself in three forms - Father, Son and Holy Spirit – with all three being the same God in essence. According to the theology shared by evangelicals and Catholics, there has never been a time when the one and only God wasn’t God.

Now, compare the above-described theology to that taught by Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of the LDS Church. In Volume 6 of The Journal of Discourses, Smith states the following:

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. . . 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 will take away and do away the vail, 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 you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, – namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one, – from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. . .
. . . In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it.

The above-quoted teachings of Smith reveal that LDS theology is polytheistic, in contrast to the theology of evangelicals and Catholics. The pro-Mormon website fairlds.org explains that in Mormon theology, Jesus is not the only son of his Father.

In a commentary titled “The fourth Abrahamic religion” Standard-Examiner editor Neal Humphrey states the following:

Mormons routinely avoid public discourse about essential tenets of their faith. On one hand, Mormons describe themselves as Christians just like everybody else. On the other, they prefer to keep private such core beliefs as the sibling relationship between Jesus and Satan, the plurality of gods, how they believe a god named Elohim instructed two demi-gods named Jehovah and Michael to organize (not create) our planet from existing matter, etc.
This style of religion is called a “mystery religion.” We haven’t seen a fully functional mystery religion since Mithraism evaporated 1,500 years ago. Mystery religions have a public and private side. The public or exoteric face of the religion looks culturally normal. The private and esoteric side is the reality.
This is not a negative judgment of Mormonism, just a description. It also explains why when Mormons declare “We believe in the Savior too,” it is insufficient. By contrast, the late President Gordon B. Hinkley was always refreshingly candid in affirming the truth that Mormons do not believe in same Jesus as traditional Christianity.

In short, the LDS faith is a polytheistic faith in which Jesus is one of several deities, in which Jesus and Satan are brothers.

So, whenever Mitt Romney mentions God, he should . . .

In contrast, the theology shared by evangelicals and Catholics is a theology that is monotheistic. Nowhere in evangelical and Catholic theology do Jesus and Satan have a sibling relationship.

If evangelicals factor in theological differences when deciding who to vote for, then they are inclined to favor candidates who are monotheistic, such as Gingrich and Santorum, as opposed to a candidate who is silently polytheistic, such as Romney.

Yet, as Sean Trende points out, evangelicals could have a non-theological reason for favoring Gingrich and Santorum over Romney. The reason could simply be that evangelicals consider Romney to be less conservative than the other candidates.

I, for one, do not think that Romney’s theology should held against him when deciding who should be the GOP nominee. Better a Mormon who can defeat Obama than a Catholic who can’t. After all, Romney, Gingrich and Santorum are running for President of the USA, not president of the National Association of Evangelicals.

Shortlink:

Posted by David Robertson on February 6, 2012.
Filed under 2012 Presidential Race, Mitt Romney.
A refugee from Planet Melmac masquerading as a human. Loves cats*. In fair condition. A fixer-upper. Warranty still good. Not necessarily sane.[*Joke in reference to the TV sit-com "Alf", which featured a space alien who liked to eat cats. Disclaimer: No cats were harmed in the writing and posting of this profile.]

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Caydon-Robison/100003520295940 Caydon Robison
There is more proof for what Prophet Joseph Smith taught than any other religion. Prophet Joseph Smith explained many mysteries that other prophets were not able to explain in the King Follett Discourse. Based on Joseph Smith’s teachings, Lorenzo Snow, the fifth president of the Mormon church, wrote that: “As man is, God once was; As God is, man may be.”

jim_m
“As man is, God once was; As God is, man may be.”
Thank for demonstrating in precise terms why Christians view Mornonism as a non-Christian cult.

Wendell Welling
But Jim, there are a number of ancient Christian Church fathers who made identical statements. They do exist, why aren’t you aware of them? And the article fails to point out that this ‘shared theology’ of Catholics and Protestants only dates to the Fourth Century. It is well known among Bible Scholars that the ultimate Creedal declarations now assumed to be foundational to Christianity are the result of debates in the fourth and fifth centuries. Even the so called, “sibling” relationship between Jesus and Satan is not original with Joseph Smith. Perhaps a deeper study of the cradle of Christianity would be helpful.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Spencer/100002099805894 Terry Spencer
If you believe study the Bible, you will see that Mormons have it more right than most Christians…..read my comments.

http://otisthehand.blogspot.com/ OTIS the hand
What is to keep the next guy from coming along and claiming another “new” revelation better than Smith’s? Nothing. False prophets have been doing it for centuries.

Wendell Welling
So, what you are saying is that the risk of never hearing from God again is acceptable because you don’t know how to make a distinction. It is fortunate you didn’t have to make a decision in the time of Christ or any of the other prophets. There is always a mix of the true and the false. It has always been that way.

http://otisthehand.blogspot.com/ OTIS the hand
Not quite. There are methods of validating whether prophets are true or false. It’s not that difficult. All that is required is absolute one hundred percent accuracy in all prophecies. Joseph Smith fails the test spectacularly. On the other hand, I find complete fulfillment of biblical prophecy hundreds of years after the fact, miraculous healing gifts, and rising from the dead pretty convincing. I don’t think I would have had much trouble in Jesus’ day, any more than now.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Spencer/100002099805894 Terry Spencer
Good comments! Joseph Smith didn’t invent the doctrin of “man becoming like God.” The early Church Fathers in the first centuries right after Christs death believed the same thing.
Mormons are not alone in the doctrine that “man be become like God.” It seems that this theology existed in the Early Christian Church.   It is called the doctrine of “Theosis,” and has many striking similarities to Mormonism. The following quotations are from early Church Fathers, theologians, and apologists from the first centuries after Christ, before the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.
Irenaeus
“We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods.” “Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, of his boundless love, became what we are that he might make us what he himself is.” But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, ‘I have said, Ye are gods, and all sons of the Most High.’ To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the ‘adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father.’”
Clement of Alexandria
“Yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.”
Justin Martyr
“[By Psalm 82] it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming “gods,” and even of having power to become sons of the Highest.”
Athanasius
“The Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods…. just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through His flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life…[we are] sons and gods by reason of the word in us.”

Jonathan Jacobs, in his “An Eastern Orthodox Conception of Theosis and Human Nature,” quotes many of the writings of the Early Church Fathers:
·                    St. Irenaeus of Lyons stated that God “became what we are in order to make us what he is himself.”
·                    St. Clement of Alexandria says that “he who obeys the Lord and follows the prophecy given through him . . . becomes a god while still moving about in the flesh.”
·                    St. Athanasius wrote that “God became man so that men might become gods.”
·                    St. Cyril of Alexandria says that we “are called ‘temples of God’ and indeed ‘gods’, and so we are.”
·                    St. Basil the Great stated that “becoming a god” is the highest goal of all.
·                    St. Gregory of Nazianzus implores us to “become gods for (God’s) sake, since (God) became man for our sake.”
This Mormon doctrine obviously has Biblical origins, and while seemingly being acknowledged in the Early Church, has been overlooked, like so many other doctrines in the Bible, by modern, mainstream Christianity.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Spencer/100002099805894 Terry Spencer
It seems that Mormonism is the restoration of Christianity back to the way it was intended by Christ and the apostles. The doctrine of “Trinity” was invented at the Council of Nicea, almost three Hundred years after Christ’s death. “Trinity” doesn’t appear to be taught by the Apostles of Old.
http://otisthehand.blogspot.com/ OTIS the hand
I note that you go everywhere except the Word of God in your justification of Mormon doctrine, save for a single verse, cherry picked out of context. The bible must be interpreted as a whole. There are many other verses that contradict the idea that man is, or ever will be, God (or a god.) In fact, such a premise is more the hallmark of Satan (“I will become like the Most High”) than a position of righteousness.

BradDenney
I would rather have a sense of continuous growth in body and mind than sitting in a mansion prepared for me for the rest of eternity. That seems like Hell.

http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson
FYI, when the KJV Bible was first published, the word “mansion” referred to a room within a house. One having a room in God’s house means that one is blessed.

http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran
A bigot who insists he is objectively right is still a bigot, isn’t he?
As a Catholic, I don’t consider Mormonism to be a Christian religion: Jesus brought a New Covenant, but that’s the last one, take it or leave it. God didn’t put in footnotes or revisions 18 centuries later.
Having said that, those Mormons I have known seem to live their faith consistently, moreso than is observable in any other faith or denomination. I’m sure there are rotten Mormon bastards, I’ve just never met any of them. Of Catholics and “Evangelicals,” well, you don’t have to look very hard.
But from what I’ve seen in life, if I were to break down at night in the worst part of town with no money or weapon, I would most earnestly pray that the next person to come along be a Mormon.
I think South Park writers said it best:
Gary:
[to Stan] Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy
stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make
it all up, but I have a great life. and a great family, and I have the
Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don’t care if Joseph
Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now is loving your
family, being nice and helping people. And even though people in this
town might think that’s stupid, I still choose to believe in it. All I
ever did was try to be your friend, Stan, but you’re so high and mighty
you couldn’t look past my religion and just be my friend back. You’ve
got a lot of growing up to do, buddy. Suck my balls.
[turns around and walks off]
Eric Cartman:
Damn, that kid is cool, huh?

Commander_Chico
Agreed. Never met a Mormon I didn’t like, and always admired the young people I met as missionaries in parts of the world (Albania, Jamaica, Japan, Barbados, Sicily, Brazil, even a couple of ghettos in the USA)
That said, I could and should give up booze, but I could NOT give up coffee.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7FMXY3DZP7JF7SGSPIOSLLXNE Stephen
So.. would some Republicans NOT vote for Romney just because he’s a Mormon?
Would they vote or Obama? Stay at home and not vote? Write in some other conservative candidate?

jim_m
I’m sure out of the millions who vote there will be some who make up their minds based on that ridiculous criteria. I doubt that it will be a significant number. Far more likely is that they will stay home because he’s a RINO.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7FMXY3DZP7JF7SGSPIOSLLXNE Stephen
I don’t get that. They’d stay home because Romney isn’t conservative enough — helping Obama’s chances?
Makes no sense, but I don’t dispute it will happen. I suspect there are hard core lefties may feel Obama is a LINO and might not vote at all for that reason… helping Romney (or whoever).

jim_m
Yes, it makes no sense and that is because not voting never makes any sense.
http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson
Obama a LINO?
ROTFLMAO

jim_m
LINO, that’s Stephen speak for communist.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7FMXY3DZP7JF7SGSPIOSLLXNE Stephen
Ask a true liberal if Obama is a “liberal” – the answer is no.
If you don’t know that by now, you don’t know what a liberal is…
http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson
Oh, I get it. Classic liberals are generous with their own money. Neo-liberals are generous with other people’s money.

LiberalNightmare
I think we will see a lot of articles like this one over the next few months as the democrats try to make Romney’s religion an issue without coming right out and saying it.
Of course, the way things are going these days, this article is just as likely to have republican origins as not.
I guess the thinking is that evangelicals will be more offended by Romneys religion, than by Obama’s relative hostility to religion in general.
I dunno, I kind of doubt it.
4evermore
I just love this back-and-forth debate. For the many thousand of years, we as so call humans, are still guessing. The beat goes on. I just love it!

http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson
Ahem! You humans may guess, but we Melmacians don’t.
Mormons believe in the existence of muliple deities.
Christians believe in the existence of only one deity.
As a Melmacian, I believe . . .
. . . that I’ll have another drink.
L’chaim!

MichaelLaprarie
As for me, I can only tell you what my lying eyes and burning ears have seen and heard:
1) There has yet to be a single major conservative pundit, or a single major conservative blog or print publication (e.g. The Weekly Standard, National Review, American Thinker, Town Hall, etc.) that has steadily and consistently advanced arguments against Romney PRIMARILY because he is LDS.
2) I have yet to personally communicate with any conservative that I know who is against Romney PRIMARILY because he is LDS.
In other words, I have not personally seen any real, overriding anti-LDS sentiment among conservatives; certainly not to the extent that I have observed real, seething anti-Catholic and anti-Evangelical sentiment among liberals and progressives. Maybe that’s why liberals are so focused on the whole anti-Mormon thing – they suffer from such strong anti-religious biases themselves.
Those who dislike Romney see him as a squishy conservative who is 1) a Northern son of privilege, which is a pretty big hurdle for southern Conservatives to clear, 2) a flip-flopper on a number of issues, particularly abortion (another big issue for southern Conservatives, who tend to be serious about religious beliefs), and 3) too much of a slick-talking professional politician who gives rehearsed, canned answers and doesn’t speak from the heart.
It’s really not much more complicated than that.

jim_m
The left were the first to bring race into the discussion when obama ran.
The left was the first to bring religion into the discussion with Romney.
The left was the first to criticize their own patriotism (so they could defend their patriotism).
It’s quite a pattern.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb
Oh come on, man.
Race has been “in the discussion” before segregation.
Religion was “in the discussion” back when Kennedy ran, because he was a Catholic. Hell, it was “in the discussion” when Eisenhower admitted he’d never been baptised.
And are you seriously suggesting that the right was **second** to accuse the left of not having patriotism?
I just want some historicity.

SCSIwuzzy
Agreed.I hear the wrong vote for a Mormon crap from the left, have yet to hear it from the right.

Wendell Welling
Then you need to read the write ups about more than a few conservative pastors and their stump speeches regarding Romney. In particular there have been assaults on Romney’s religion coming from the Perry camp, the Santorum camp and the Gingrich camp. In recent weeks, there have been high level discussions between a cast of Prominent Evangelical ministers to decide which conservative to Romney they can get behind, and the decision was Santorum. That didn’t hold up too well and Gingrich took South Carolina. Evangelicals love Mormons when it comes to manning the phones, but not so much when it comes to holding office. No matter how many non-Evangelicals have held the Presidency, for some reason, a Mormon has to be a special case.

SCSIwuzzy
If there are so many, you can provide a link or some names

Wendell Welling
However It is interesting that in South Carolina at least, a large number of Christian Conservatives totally bought into Newt’s change of heart on adultery when he became a Catholic, but no matter how many times Romney say’s he has changed his mind on abortion, they refuse to believe it. That makes little sense to me. If a person can have a change of heart about his own adultery, why can’t a politician have a change of heart on abortion? Gingrich may fall to temptation again, but it is not likely that Romney will have an abortion.

PBunyan
I have heard from some Seventh Day Adventists that I know that they cannot vote for Romney because he is a Mormon. While I don’t doubt their sincerity or conviction, I can’t say what effect that will have, as there aren’t a whole lotta SDAs and they’re anything but monolithic so probably not much.
http://www.pohdiaries.com/ TWB
I posted a piece at my blog delving into this subject just a bit based mainly on my own personal experiences.
http://pohdiaries.com/does-mitt-romney-face-anti-mormonism-i-think-he-does/
http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson
Sean Trende’s article pertains to the difference between the voting of evangelical conservatives and the voting of non-evangelical conservatives. Both groups are conservative. So, why is there any significant difference in how the two groups vote?

MichaelLaprarie
The evangelical culture is primarily southern. I think the answer is simply that Romney doesn’t appeal to Southerners, because they are wary of slick, rich Northern politicians. To the extent that his Mormonism matters, it is probably more of a case of him being “non evangelical” than specifically being LDS.

Wendell Welling
Nixon was no Evangelical.

JWH
It’s cultural, really. IMO (and this is a gross generalization, I know), the South has long been more religious than the North, and more willing to express that religion. The preambles from the US Constitution and the Confederate constitution make for an interesting contrast:
US:
”
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Confederate:
We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity—invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God—do ordain and establish this constitution for the Confederate States of America.

SCSIwuzzy
I view mormons much as South Park did in their Joseph Smith episode… I find the religion and the founder a bit batty, but on average they are some of the nicest people I have met. Focused on family and on contributing to the community in a positive way. I won’t join up, but wouldn’t mind them moving in next door

herddog505
Exactly.

JWH
I can’t help shaking my head at this. You guys are arguing about whether the unicorn is invisible or pink.

JWH
OK … reading through this thread a little more closely, I was wrong. For the most part, nobody here is arguing about Mormonism vs. mainline Christianity. Although the main post goes into it a bit heavily.
Wendell Welling
I say blue.

Pingback: 7 February 2012 | MormonVoices
rameumptom
“God became man so that man might become a god.” (cf. St.
Athanasius, De Incarnatione or On the Incarnation 54:3, PG 25:192B;
also Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 460)
Deification is found in many traditional Christian churches today, including the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.
That some LDS beliefs are different than those of traditional Christianity does not mean those beliefs are modern. The concept of the Godhead/Trinity being three separate beings was an ancient belief, held by such early Christian fathers as Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Arius (although his was very different than the prior two).
Joseph Smith believed he was restoring ancient concepts. And whether you agree with his positions or not, he actually did! That many Christians do not accept Mormonism as Christian is based upon a difference in creeds, rather than a direct read of the Bible. Yes, one can find the Trinity in the Bible. But one can also find the anthropomorphic Godhead found in Mormonism, as well. IOW, one is as Biblically traditional as the other. That Mormons have a high Christology can easily be proven by a quick read through the Book of Mormon.
Whether our Christian brothers and sisters accept us as Christian is of no matter to us. What matters is that Christ has saved us. And we do believe he is our personal Savior.
As for the political side of it all, I do not see Gingrich or Santorum as any more or less conservative than Romney. Personally, I’m a libertarian and prefer Ron Paul over Romney and the others on most issues. Oh, and as a Mormon, I don’t mind Catholics or evangelists moving next door to me, either!

JWH
Watch those Unitarians, though.
jim_m
I’m searching Athanasius’ On The Incarnation and I cannot find the quote you claim. In fact a search on the Christian Classics Etherial Library yields ZERO results for the phrase “God became” in that title.
I invite you to prove that your claim of false doctrine by the Catholic Church is anything but total BS on your part: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/athanasius/incarnation
I don’t mind Mormons. I DO mind people who lie about my religion or misrepresent theirs to say that they believe what I do.

jim_m
Oh and the correct quote from the Catechism is “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.”. Not “a god” as you misrepresent, which changes the entire meaning of the phrase. The point is that we can become one with God, with Christ living in us and through us.
Such errors are what heresy is made of.

jim_m
And here is your quote from Athanasius in context
He, indeed, assumed humanity that we might become God. He manifested Himself by means of a body in order that we might perceive the Mind of the unseen Father. He endured shame from men that we might inherit immortality.
If you actually read the whole thing he is not claiming that we will become gods but that we become like God Himself, that we can know God, and that we can receive the perfect state that man was intended to have before the fall.
The Catholic Church has never taught that man can become God. Never. (And I’m not even a Catholic)
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VEL6JBE6PFSJ6QVWEXRLB43ZJA Mavin
You mean like one big spirit being, one big God, like Christ wanted us to be? John 17:21-22.

jim_m
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+17&version=ESV
Read the whole passage. Christ is saying a prayer over the Apostles as he is sending them out into the world. He is praying that the Apostles will be united in their faith and purpose.
If you are saying that Christ is saying that they should all be one spirit being explain why He says “that they may be one even as we are one” john 17:22b. Christ is in the room with the Apostles and God is in Heaven. Obviously this is a metaphor and meant to be understood as one.
The early church did not at any time teach that man could become God.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Dan-Bradshaw/1558092154 Dan Bradshaw
I’m afraid you are very wrong about that. There are MANY more quotes that you must get through to deny it. Here’s St. Irenaeus for example… “If the Word became a man, it was so men may become gods. Here’s Justin Martyr… ’God standeth in the congregation of gods; He judgeth among the gods…I said, Ye are gods, and are all children of the Most High’…let the interpretation of the Psalm be held just as you wish, yet thereby it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming “gods,” and of having power to become sons of the Highest.”
There are actually movements among Christianity today that realize this was an early teaching among Christians and are discussing how to revive it.
jim_m
My point is that you misrepresent them by taking them out of context. The context of John 17 is clear to anyone who actually reads it. You are taking it as a single verse and letting your whole theology rest upon it.
Whenever you need to rest your theology on a single verse you are in trouble.
The same goes for the early church fathers. You need to have the quote in context and you need to understand who the audience was that they were addressing. Remember that they were in a polytheistic culture and that some of their writings reflect that. That does not mean that they wree promoting polytheism.
Go anywhere to look at Christian doctrine and you will find that heresies about the nature of God and the incarnation have always existed. However, the church has never accepted anything implying that Christ was created and that Christ is not eternally God. Nor has it ever accepted that God was ever a man or that any theology deying the Trinity is accepted as “Christian”.
Wendell Welling
Then apply that rationale to the doctrine of the Trinity. It is found nowhere in the New Testament. Many Bible dictionaries bear this out. And if the Catholic Church never taught something, it doesn’t mean that early Church Fathers didn’t.
Wendell Welling
Christ no more meant for us to be one big God than he wanted for men to become one big Apostle. John 17.

Wendell Welling
Jim,
There is no teaching in the New Testament that would give the idea that becoming God means we lose our individuality. The mystery of the Trinity is post Biblical.

rameumptom
Here is wikipedia on divinization, which cites Athanasius, Augustine, Irenaeus, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian)

http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson
I elaborated on the theological differences between LDS theology and evangelical/Catholic theology for this reason: Sean Trende couldn’t figure out why evangelicals would have a theological problem with Romney but not with Gingrich or Santorum.

JWH
Unicorns.
JWH
Unicorns.

Wendell Welling
Cockatrices.

JWH
Honest lawyers.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VEL6JBE6PFSJ6QVWEXRLB43ZJA Mavin
You tried to elaborate on
the theological differences but that is very hard when you do not understand
either. Most Christians believe in the resurrected Christ but few Churches
believe it. Most Christians claim to believe the Bible, but few read or
understand what it teaches. Do you believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ? More specifically, do
you believe that Jesus Christ was crucified on the cross and that the Spirit
Being Jesus went, as he promised the thief crucified next to him, to a place
called paradise and that the dead body of Christ was laid in the tomb?
Luke 23:33,43,53
James 2:26 Do you
believe that after 3 days the Spirit of Christ reunited with the body in the
tomb and the body was changed from mortal to immortal and from corruption to
incorruption? Acts 2:31,1 Corinthians 15:4,53-55 Do you believe Christ when He
showed his immortal body to his Apostles and testify that His resurrected body
was a body of flesh and bones? Luke 24:36-39 John 20:27, Acts
1:3 Do you
believe Christ when He testified that he would never die again, that he was
alive forever more? Rev 1:18, Romans 6:9 And the 64 Thousand dollar
question, do you believe that the Man Christ Jesus has a glorious resurrected
body of flesh and bones today or did he die again and is now just a spirit?
Romans 6:9, Philippians 3:21, 1John 3:2, James 2:26,
Acts 1:11 If Christ did die a second
death and no longer has a resurrected body of flesh and bones and is now just a
spirit, can you have a hope of a resurrected glorious body like Christ’s if He
does not have one? Philippians 3:21, Romans 6:5,
1Corinthians 15:13-17. The creeds of men say that ” There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite
in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or
passions.” (The Westminster Confession of
Faith) Do you believe the Bible and in
the resurrection of Christ or do you believe the creeds of
men?

jim_m
do you believe that the Man Christ Jesus has a glorious resurrected body of flesh and bones today or did he die again and is now just a spirit? Romans 6:9, Philippians 3:21, 1John 3:2, James 2:26,
None of those verses make that claim.
As to the Westmoinster confession, the part you quote is speaking of God the Father and not of Christ. Trinitarian doctine states that there is one God, who co-exists in three distinct persons.
So to answer your question: I believe in the creeds of men when they coincide with the Bible. One of thoise is the Wetminster Confession. Apparently you are unable to understand the Westminster Confession because you are unable to grasp the concept of the Trinity. Mormonism denies the Trinity so this would not be surprising that you cannot understand it.
If you really want to discuss theology this is not the place. There are plenty of online discussion boards specializing in theology that might serve you better.

Wendell Welling
The “concept of the Trinity” was never taught by either Jesus or any of his Apostles. Perhaps that is part of the reason some can’t or don’t care to grasp it. Jesus never identified with a Triune definition of God. None of his Apostles did. The earliest Church Fathers did not. Perhaps if you could study the pre-Creedal history a bit more, you would realize that there was a perfectly good Orthodoxy prior to the arguments that led up to the doctrine of the Trinity. This is not a Mormon position. Catholic scholars admit it as well.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Dan-Bradshaw/1558092154 Dan Bradshaw
The idea of multiple Gods is explained very well in the Bible, and this is exactly what Mormons believe… “Though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth–as in fact there are many gods and many lords–yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist” (1 Cor 8:4).
Paul is speaking against idols saying there is only one true God. But to be altogether truthful he says on a side note that, yes there are IN FACT many gods and many lords, but as far as we are concerned there is only one.

jim_m
Paul was speaking to people that believed in a polytheism. Because he addresses their culture and the beliefs they find there does not mean that Christian theology has ever recognized other gods as real, nor does it mean that Judaism has ever recognized those other gods as real or legitimate.
You pretend that the fact that other gods are mentioned in the Bible automatically means that Christianity recognizes them as legitimate and real. That is not the case and you will not find a serious Chirstian scholar who has ever argued that. You can look at the early chiurch counsils and you will see that they never recognized that belief. You claim that the writings of the early church fathers support it then why did no early church council ever ratify that belief? The answer is becuase it was never doctrine. You are misinterpreting the writings and you are taking them out of context to twist to your own purposes.
That again is a really good demonstration why the Christian church deems mormonism and a heretical cult. It twists scripture by taking it out of context, it also adds to scripture when the Bible and the Church have declared it to be closed.
You are free to believe what you want. Just don’t call yourself Christian and don’t tell me what my church believes. I’m not telling you what your church believes nor am I talking about how your church has changed what it teaches and believes.

Neal Rappleye
That chart is from Brant Gardner’s presentation on the Nephite conception of God, compared with the Early Israelite (pre-exilic) understanding. It not supposed to represent modern LDS theology, but rather ancient Israelite theology.

jim_m
And hence misrepresents what they actually believed. The point is made quite clear in the Bible that the other gods (Baal, Ashteroth, etc) were false gods (ie not gods at all but made up). Claiming that the Hebrew faith recognized them as legitimate or real is inaccurate. Yes they worshipped these gods but the Hebrew faith never recognized them. Trying to characterize them now as legitimate objects of worship is dishonest.

Neal Rappleye
jim_m: If that is how you feel about it, fine. But biblical scholarship has been uncovering for decades now the the Israelites were NOT “monotheistic” as we conceive of them. Before declaring it a “misrepresentation”, you should AT LEAST read the article it is attached to, and should probably read up on a whole lot more biblical scholarship (and yes, there are even evangelical scholars who agree with this).
Nonetheless, that is not the point, and I am hardly interested in getting into along debate with you about it. The bottom line is the chart is being misused in this article, which presents it as the modern LDS view – that is not what the chart is meant to represent.

jim_m
I guess you miss my point. Yes from a historicl aspect the Jewish people were not monotheistic. They lived in a polytheistic culture and the Bible documents how they strayed into the worship of other gods.
However, the Hebrew religion is a monotheism.
Also, there is Biblical scholarship and there is Biblical scholarship. There have been academic exercises such as the Jesus Seminar that have purported to reach new and allegedly better and more accurate understandings about the Christian faith but these and their ilk are a bunch of BS. There is a lot of bad scholoarship out there today and there always has been.

Neal Rappleye
jim_m: If that is what you want to think, fine. I really don’t care. I already said I’m not going to go the rounds on that issue.
The point is the OP misrepresents the meaning of that graphic. It is dishonest to use it as a representation of LDS theology.

Wendell Welling
The Hebrew faith was at first Monaltristic and not Monotheistic as the term is now understood. That means that they admitted to the existence of other beings who possessed divinity, such as the Sons of God, but they reserved worship for their God, who had a covenant with them. The belief in monotheism as later experienced by the Jewish nation is a post exhilic development.

http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson
I wanted to provide a link to the webpage from which the chart came, but someone at fairlds.org deleted the page after I copied the chart.
If you want LDS theology, then read the teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr. It is a wee bit difficult for LDS Church members to disagree with Smith if they believe that he was a prophet.

Neal Rappleye
David: The FAIR webpage has been transitioning to another server (or something like that…I’m not much of a techie), so perhaps it was down momentarily. I have had not trouble accessing the page with that chart various times today.
http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2003-fair-conference/2003-monotheism-messiah-and-mormons-book
Nonetheless, the bottom line is this chart is not meant to represent LDS theology, but rather it is a model of early Israelite theology (based on how various biblical scholars reconstruct it). You are misrepresenting LDS theology in your article by using this chart.

dhrogers
If Christianity means “historic orthodox mainstream Christianity” of today then I would agree that Mormonism is not historic Christianity; at least not in every doctrine. Although Mormons have much in common with other Christians Mormons also believe differently than historic Christians in some key areas. But the real questions to ask are 1) What is original Christianity? 2) Is mainstream Christianity of today the same as original Christianity?
Mormons are not supposed to be Christian because we have some doctrinal differences with other Christian groups of today. The foundation for the beliefs of these other groups is the creeds of the 4th. 5th, and 6th centuries and so on.
It is claimed that Mormons are wrong because they believe in extra-Biblical revelation and scripture. Yet much of Christianity believes in extra-Biblical creeds and councils formulated centuries after the time of Christ and the Apostles. Most of the wording formulations in these creeds cannot be found in the Bible. This is often the excuse used to exclude members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) from being Christian. It is well known to historians that Christian doctrine changed over time and across different Christian groups.
The Bible is then viewed through the lens of these creeds causing certain interpretations to be favored and other biblical teachings to be minimized or ignored. Interestingly, if you look at the doctrines of the early church fathers before the creeds, they are very Mormon-like. In a number of doctrinal areas the early Christians were good Mormons and would be rejected as non-Christian by many Christians of today.
In many areas of belief (probably the majority of areas) Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) believe the same as most other Christians. It is true that in some limited areas – some very critical ones – the beliefs of Mormons differ from other Christians. Likewise there are some major areas of difference between Catholics and Protestants and likewise between one Protestant group and the next. Every denomination could make the claim that the other groups are not Christian because those other beliefs differ from their own.
Joseph Smith taught “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”. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 121).
The central belief of Mormons is that Christ came into the world as the Son of God. He healed the sick, caused the lame to walk, the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and restored life to the dead. He commissioned twelve Apostles to whom he gave authority. He suffered in Gethsemane, died on the cross, and was resurrected and will come again. He, and only He, provides the means for us to be washed clean in his blood from our sins, which sins we can never correct on our own or through our own works. If that is not Christian I don’t know what is. Christ never taught the need to believe in anything like the creeds. Those came later.
Mormon belief is very much like the teachings of the earlier Christians – before the creeds – and also matches the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. The further back in time you go the more Mormon-like Christian doctrine becomes. Mormons are often portrayed as non-Christian when we don’t believe in the later extra-Biblical creedal formulations.
The early Christians did not have the extra-Biblical creeds of later centuries. Were they then not Christian? The ontological debates and the wording formations of later centuries are not found in the words of Jesus or the words of the Apostles or in the words of the pre-creedal Christians . There is not a word about a one substance god in the Bible or in the early beliefs. If believing in the creeds is necessary to be Christian then that makes the earlier Christians not Christian – it even makes Christ not Christian.
One other interesting aspect of this topic: Some Christians claim that we must get our beliefs and doctrines from the Bible only. It is claimed that God finished his work and no longer has prophets or gives revelation. They say the Mormons are wrong to have prophets and extra scripture. Consider this: If the Bible is sufficient and no post-Biblical revelation is allowed, then the post-Biblical creeds are not necessary and are not authorized by God. If God authorized the creeds then why aren’t they in the Bible? How could they be from God if the Bible is complete, if God has finished his work, and if there is no more revelation? They are extra-Biblical and no one should be held to them as a requirement to be Christian. It is so ironic that Mormons are criticized for having extra-Biblical revelation by people who themselves believe in extra-Biblical creeds. Once one puts on the glasses of the creeds then everything in the Bible is filtered to match the creeds.
Mormons believe in original Christianity restored to the earth through revelation to new prophets. Nowhere does the Bible say that God has finished his work, that the cannon of scripture is closed. It seems ironic to us that we Mormons are accused of adding to the Bible by people who have done just that – added creeds and metaphysical definitions to the Bible. We advocate for believing original Christianity.
Dwight
dhrogers
We don’t have to rely on Joseph Smith or Lorenzo Snow on this issue. How about we believe what Jesus Himself and his Apostles taught. And let’s throw in what the early orthodox Christian Fathers taught as well:
“Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.” (John 5:19-20)
Jesus is God incarnate. This shows that God came to earth and took upon himself a physical body. This shows that God can have a physical body. Jesus was resurrected with that body (Luke 24:39). Jesus (God) will still have it when he comes again. (Zech. 14:4; 12:10; 13:6; John 20:24-28, Acts 1:9-11; Rev 1:7; 1 Cor. 15:3-8, 12-20, 35-42; D&C 93:33).
So, God was once a man with a mortal physical body and still has his physical body after the resurrection and will still have it when he comes again. So, if you are a Trinitarian who believes in the one–substance God, then Joseph Smith was right since Jesus is God and Jesus was once a man.
If you believe in pre-Nicene doctrine/Biblical doctrine (LDS Doctrine) which recognizes a difference in substance between the Father and the Son, then the following applies:
In this passage (John 5:19-20) Jesus tells us that he does nothing – that’s NOTHING – but what he has seen the Father do. Jesus knows this because the Father shows the Son “all things that himself doeth.” Since Jesus does nothing but what he has seen the Father do then this tells us what the Father has done before, meaning that the Father, at some point, went through a mortal experience just as the Son was then going through. This is not speaking to the doctrine of whether or not God has always existed but is simply saying that the Father, at some point took upon himself a mortal body just as the Son did. This is true since Jesus says that He does nothing but what the Father has also done.
So whether speaking of Trinitarian or pre-Trinitarian doctrine, Joseph Smith was right it either case.
dhrogers
Jesus taught the following:
“Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
“Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
“The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God:” (John 10:31-36)
Here, the Jews wanted to stone Jesus ” for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” Jesus then reminded them of their own scripture which teaches that “, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High” from Psalms 82:6.
After this the Jews had to back down. They could not stone him because they knew he was right. They knew that their own scriptures teach the same thing and they had no case against Him. Jesus reminded them that God had “called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken”.
The Apostle Paul makes a similar point as recorded in the New Testament. Like Isaiah, he writes of false man-made gods in 1 Corinthians chapter 8. In addition to the false man-made gods on earth, he also writes of the existence of true gods in the heavens He says:
“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many and lords many,) But to us there is but one God.. .” (1 Cor. 8: 5-6)
Here Paul recognizes that there are both false gods on earth and true gods in the heavens, but out of them all, there is only one God for us. Some may doubt that Paul was referring to true gods when he said “in heaven” and “(as there be gods many and lords many,). Yet, among true Bible believers, who can believe that there are false gods in heaven? So, when Paul talks of gods in heaven, he can only be talking of true Gods. Here, the Apostle Paul speaking polytheistically about the gods in heaven but monotheistically when he says that only one of them is our God.
Psalms 8:4-5 teaches that man is “a little lower than the gods.” The King James Version (and most translations) give it as “lower than the angels,” but the word used in the Hebrew is gods. The Hebrew term “elohim”,or “gods” is used to describe human judges in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9. Here authorized servants of God are called “gods.” Exodus 7:1 says that Moses was to be “god to Pharaoh.” Note that these are with a small “g” recognizing the pre-eminence of the God we worship.
And Paul says in Romans 8:14-18: “For as many as are lead by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God; And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ;”
And again Christ said to John the Revelator: “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. (Revelations 3:21)
John says: “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doeth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.” (1 John 3:2-3)
In the first verses of the Bible, in the Hebrew, Moses refers to the head God who called forth the other gods. It is not rendered this way in English translations. Then the head God says to the others “let us make man in our image and after our likeness.” (Genesis 1:26-27). God later says to the other gods “let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” (Genesis 11:5-7).
“Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?” (Ex. 15:11)
“For the Lord your God is God of gods, and the Lord of lords, a great God…
“Thou shalt fear the Lord they God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.
“He is thy praise, and he is thy God…” (Deu. 11:17, 20-21)
“God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.” (Ps. 82:1) Or as it is rendered in the NRSV translation “God has taken His place in the divine council, in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.”
“Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works.” (Ps. 86:8)
“For thou, Lord, art high above all the earth: thou art exalted far above all gods.” (Ps. 97:9)
“For I know that the Lord is great, and that our Lord is above all gods.” (Ps. 135:5)
“O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth forever. O give thanks to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth forever.” (Ps. 136: 2-3)
“For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God.” (Deut. 10:17)
Note that the early Christian fathers, the early Bishops and respected orthodox theologians, were good Mormons. Note what they taught:
“God became man that man might become God.” (St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinis in: Philip Barlow, doctoral candidate in American Religious History at Harvard: Unorthodox Orthodoxy: The Idea of Deification in Christian History, Sunstone, Vol 8, no 5, pp 13-16))
“He became what we are, in order that we might be what he is.” (Maximus in Ibid)
“I may become God to the same extent as he became man.” (Gregory of Nazianus in Ibid)
“The Holy Spirit aids man in being made God.” (Basil of Ceasarea in Ibid)
“Flee with all in your power from being man and make haste to become gods.” (Origin in Ibid)
Speaking of the soul which seeks to become pure Clement of Alexandria said: “The soul, receiving the Lord’s power, studies to become a god.” (Clement in Ibid)
IRENAEUS
It has been claimed by some that this doctrine of becoming gods is an altogether pagan doctrine that blasphemes the majesty of God. Not all Christians have thought so, however. Irenaeus [A.D. 130-200], Bishop of Lyons, was instructed by Polycarp. Polycarp was personally instructed by the apostle John. Irenaeus became a prominent bishop in the Church in the second century. He became the most important Christian theologian of his time, and is considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity. Yet he taught:
“If the Word became a man, It was so men may become gods.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, bk. 5, pref.)
Irenaeus also taught: “We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods.” (Ibid, also in (Bettenson, H., The Early Christian Fathers, [London: Oxford University Press, 1956,] p. 94.)
Also: “Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, of his boundless love, became what we are that he might make us what he himself is.” (Irenaeus in Henry Betteson, The Early Christian Fathers, London: Oxford University Press, 1956, p 106)
And: “While man gradually advances and mounts towards perfection; that is, he approaches the eternal. The eternal is perfect; and this is God. Man has first to come into being, then to progress, and by progressing come to manhood, and having reached manhood to increase, and thus increasing to persevere, and persevering to be glorified, and thus see his Lord.” (Irenaeus in Henry Betteson, The Early Christian Fathers, London: Oxford University Press, 1956, p. 94)
And :”How then will any be a god, if he has not first been made a man? How immortal, if he has not in his mortal nature obeyed his maker? For one’s duty is first to observe the discipline of man and thereafter to share in the glory of God.” (Ibid, pp. 95-96)
Indeed, Saint Irenaeus had more to say on the subject of deification:
“Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, ‘I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High.’ For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that, what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies,4.38. Cp. 4.11)
“But man receives progression and increase towards God. For God is always the same, so also man, when found in God, shall always progress toward God.” (Ibid)
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
In the second century, Saint Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.” (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks, 1; Also in Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus 1, (8,4), in Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers, p. 244.)
Clement also said that “If one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God.. His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes a god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus was right when he said, ‘Men are gods, and gods are men.’” (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 3.1 See also Clement, Stromateis, 23.)
And also: “‘To him who has shall be added;’ knowledge to faith, love to knowledge, and love to inheritance. And this happens when a man depends on the Lord through faith, through knowledge, and love, and ascends with him to the place where God is, the God and guardian of our faith and love, from whom knowledge is delivered to those who are fit for this privilege and who are selected because of their desire for fuller preparation and training; who are prepared to listen to what is told them, to discipline their lives, to make progress by careful observance of the law of righteousness. This knowledge leads them to the end, the endless final end; teaching of the life that is to be ours, a life of conformity to God, with gods, when we have been freed from all punishment, which we undergo as a result of our wrong-doings for our saving discipline. After thus being set free; those who had been perfected are given their reward and their honors. They have done with their purification, they have done with the rest of their service, though it be a holy service, with the holy; now they become pure in heart, and because of their close intimacy with the Lord there awaits them a restoration to eternal contemplation; and they have received the title of ‘gods,’ since they are destined to be enthroned with other ‘gods’ who are ranked next below the Savior.” (Ibid pp. 243-244)
JUSTIN MARTYR
Still in the second century, Saint Justin Martyr insisted that in the beginning men were “made like God, free from suffering and death,” and that they are “thus deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest.” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 124)
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSLEM
Here is an interesting quote from St. Cyril of Jerusalem, an early Christian bishop. This fascinating quote is from his Prologue to the Catechetical Lectures:
“When thou shalt have heard what is written concerning the mysteries, then wilt thou understand things which thou knewest not. And think not that thou receivest a small thing: though a miserable man, thou receivest one of God’s titles. Hear St. Paul saying, God is faithful. Hear another Scripture saying, God is faithful and just. Foreseeing this, the Psalmist, because men are to receive a title of God, spoke thus in the person of God: I said, Ye are Gods, and are all sons of the Most High. But beware lest thou have the title of ‘faithful,’ but the will of the faithless. Thou hast entered into a contest, toil on through the race: another such opportunity thou canst not have. Were it thy wedding-day before thee, wouldest thou not have disregarded all else, and set about the preparation for the feast? And on the eve of consecrating thy soul to the heavenly Bridegroom, wilt thou not cease from carnal things, that thou mayest win spiritual?”
JEROME (the Pope’s secretary)
St. Jerome explains Psalms 82:6 as did other early Christian fathers:
“‘I said: You are gods, all of you sons of the Most High.’ Let Eunomius hear this, let Arius, who say that the Son of God is son in the same way we are. That we are gods is not so by nature, but by grace. ‘But to as many as receive him he gave power of becoming sons of god.’ I made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. ‘I said: Ye are gods, all of you sons of the Most High.’ Imagine the grandeur of our dignity; we are called gods and sons! I have made you gods just as I made Moses a god to pharaoh, so that after you are gods, you may be made worthy to be sons of God. Reflect upon the divine words: ‘with God there is no respector of persons.’ God did not say: ‘I said you are gods,’ you kings and princes; but ‘all’ to whom I have given equally a body, soul, a spirit, I have given equally divinity and adoption. We are ‘all’ born equals. Our humanity is one of equality.” (Jerome, The Homilies of Saint Jerome, Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1964 pp 106-107)
Jerome goes on to explain that man has fallen from being heirs of godship; but that he can rise and gain back this heirship. He says:
“‘Yet like men you shall die.’ You see, therefore that man will die. God does not die. Adam, too, as long as he obeyed the precept and was a god, did not die. After he tasted of the forbidden tree, however, he died immediately. In fact, God says to him: ‘The day you eat of it, you must die.’ The Hebrew has a better way of expressing this: ‘But you like Adam shall die.’ Just as Adam was cast out of the Garden of Eden, so, likewise, were we. ‘And shall fall like one of the princes.’ Since the Lord had said: ‘all of you sons of the Most High,’ it is not possible to be the son of the Most High, unless He Himself is the Most High. I said that all of you would be exalted as I am exalted. But, you ’shall fall like one of the princes.’ It is precisely because we had been so elevated that we are said to have fallen.” (Ibid)
Jerome later indicates that after having become “mere men”, those men can still become gods. He quotes the scriptures and explains: “‘Give thanks to the God of Gods.’ The prophet is referring to those gods of whom it is written: I said: ‘You are gods;’ and again: ‘God arises in the divine assembly.’ They who cease to be mere men, abandon the ways of vice and are become perfect, are gods and the sons of the Most High.” (Ibid p. 353)
TERTULLIAN
“If, indeed, you follow those who did not at the time endure the Lord when showing Himself to be the Son of God, because they would not believe Him to be the Lord, then call to mind along with them the passage where it is written, ‘I have said, Ye are gods, and ye are children of the Most High;’ and again, ‘God standeth in the congregation of the gods:’ in order that, if the scripture has not been afraid to designate as gods human beings, who have become sons of God by faith , you may be sure that the same scripture has with greater propriety conferred the name of the Lord on the true and one-only Son of God.” (Tertullian, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids Michigan: Wm.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1885, vol. 3, p. 608)
ORIGEN
Like other early Church Fathers, Origen, [A.D. 185-254], also teaches the same Biblical doctrine, of Genesis 1:1, that there is a head god who is “Lord of gods”, Origin teaches that there is a distinction to be made between “the God” and others who are also “gods.”
“Everything which, without being ‘God-in-himself’ is deified by participation in his godhead, should strictly be called ‘God,’ not ‘the God.’ The ‘firstborn of all creation,.’ Since he by being ‘with God’ first gathered godhood to himself, is therefore in every way more honored than others besides himself, who are ‘gods’ of whom God is the God, as it is said, ‘God the Lord of gods spoke and called the world.’ For it was through his ministry that they became gods, since he drew divinity from God for them to be deified, and of his kindness generously shared it with them. God, then, is the true God, and those who through him are fashioned into gods are copies of the prototype.” (Ibid p. 324)
He went on to teach: “The Father, then, is proclaimed as the one true God; but besides the true God are many who become gods by participating in God.” (Ibid)
Origen claimed that God “will be ‘all’ in each individual in this way: when all which any rational understanding, cleansed from the dregs of every sort of vice, and with every cloud of wickedness completely swept away, can either feel, or understand, or think, will be wholly God….” (Origen, De Principiis 3:6:3, in Roberts and Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, p. 345.)
AUGUSTINE
Finally, Saint Augustine himself, the greatest of the Christian Fathers, said:
“But he himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. ‘For he has given them power to become the sons of God’ [John 1:12] If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.” (Augustine, On the Psalms, 50.2 Augustine insists that such individuals are gods by grace rather than by nature, but they are gods nevertheless.)
ST. MAXIMUS
“We find it in early Orthodox tradition as well, for the ‘chief idea of St. Maximus [who died in 662 A.D.] as of all of Eastern theology, [was] the idea of deification” (S.L. Epifanovic as quoted by Jaroslav Pelikan, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700). The Christian Tradition, vol. 2, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1974, p. 10, as cited by Peterson and Ricks, p. 79).
As Paul taught in 1 Corinthians chapter 8, there is a duality to Christianity. Paul taught that there are many gods but only one that we worship, only one that is our God. Mormons hold to the doctrine of Paul and Jesus and not necessarily the doctrine of the “various Christian churches” because they no longer teach what Jesus and Paul taught. We do.
Joseph Smith once said “Mormons are the only ones who believe in the Bible. Everyone else believes in their interpretation of the Bible.” That probably sounds like a bold and even arrogant statement and I can understand how it would be offensive to some people. It is not our intention to offend people. However, if you look at real facts, real history, what the Bible and the early Christians really say (only some of which I have pointed out above) it turns out that Joseph is right. People regularly can’t see what the Bible really says because it is filtered through the lens of later orthodoxy and the extra-Biblical creeds. The divergence of Mormon theology from the theology of other Christians lies in the fact that Christianity has been modified and changed over the centuries and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is original Christianity restored to the earth. So, of course, there are differences. But I think Christians down through the ages have done the best they can without current revelation and have done remarkably well in many cases. It is, in a way, strange, that they criticize us for believing original Christianity. Seems to me that they would want to do the same instead of preferring the later creeds and counsels over the earlier version of Christianity.
If Athanasius, Augustine, Saint Irenaeus, Saint Cyril, Saint Maximus the Confessor, Saint Clement of Alexandria Jerome, and others, including C.S. Lewis in modern days, can teach the doctrine of deification, not to mention that Jesus Himself taught it as well as Paul and John and yet they are still accepted as orthodox Christians, why are Latter-day Saints said to be non-Christian for the same belief? The further back in time you go, especially when you get back before the creeds, the more Mormon-like the Christian doctrines become. Some of our doctrines are clearly at odds with mainstream churches of today, but that’s not because Joseph Smith was making up ludicrous doctrine. Long lost but true doctrines were restored through him as a divinely authorized prophet.
And if popular Christian Orthodoxy continues to hold to the current tradition of later ideas and creeds, then what are they to do with the teachings of the Early Christians, the apostles, and even Jesus Himself who did not teach the creeds? If Mormons are wrong and not Christian than so were the early Christians who taught the same things that Mormons are teaching. If Mormons are not Christian for these beliefs then this makes the Apostles and even Jesus Himself not Christian. Which Christians are right; the later Christians or the Early Christians? Who is right, Jesus, Paul, John, the Psalmist, and the early Christian fathers, or Christians who believe traditions developed centuries after Christ and the Apostles?
Dwight
dhrogers
Students of the Bible originally thought that the Hebrew religion was always monotheistic. However, most bible scholars now recognize that the original religion of the Hebrews was polytheistic and that it only took a monotheistic turn in the period of the exile in Babylon in the 6th century BC. Prior to that the Hebrew religion was overwhelmingly polytheistic.
“It is today more generally agreed that the religion of the patriarchs is properly to be designated as polytheistic.” (Herbert G. May, The Patriarchal Idea of God, in Journal of Biblical Studies, 60, 1944, p 114)
Recently biblical scholar Mark Smith published his book “The Early History of God, Yahweh, and Other Deities in Ancient Israel. ” Jehovah or Yahweh is understood early on in Israelite tradition as Israel’s God in distinction to El, the older, more senior God. Yahweh is one of El’s sons so El ultimately is the Father. Smith cites Deuteronomy 32:8 through 9 in this regard.
Elyon, which is “most high” referes to the Most High god. Smith and other scholars argure that this referes to a deity separate from Yahweh, and older god with whom Yahweh is associated.
“EL” is an early form for the name of the head god. The renowned William F. Albright says that originally there was “no kind of ‘El’ monotheism among the early western Semites and in particular among the early Hebrews.” (William F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity [FSAC], pp 246-47)
Even Yahwism was not originally monotheistic but rather a “monarchism” which tolerated no rivals. (Theodore Vriezen, The religion of Ancient Israel, London 1967, pp 12,35)
“The existence of other gods is not denied in the first commandment of the decalog itself; in fact it presupposes their existence and forbids the Israelites to worship them.” (Roland de Vaux, The Early History of Israel, Philadelphia, 1968, p 463)
Therefore, Paul, Moses, and Isaiah correctly talk of many gods while also proclaiming that there is only one that is at the head. (Isaiah 43, 44, 45; 1 Cor 8:5-6 & others). Thus, the commandment “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” is an admission that there are other gods, and that we are not to worship them.
Eloheim is a plural form of the word for God “which echoes ancient polytheism.” (B.W. Anderson, Interpreter’s Bible, 2:413) Thus, when the head God says, “let us make man in our image.” We are hearing the speech of the Gods in the ancient pantheon or council of Gods as they discuss the creation of man. (Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, New York 1968, 192; FSAC, 396)
Albright also says that the Old Testament is filled with “debris” from an earlier religious culture that was overwhelmingly polytheistic. (Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canann, 185)
The Old Testament “Sons of God” were the lesser deities of this polytheism. These lesser gods were later called “angels” in the monotheism of later centuries. (Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 4:426; also Marvin Pope, Anchor Bible, Job, New York 1965, 9)
The lesser gods together with EL and Yahweh composed the so called “council in Heaven” or SOWD. (Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 191-93; also J. Wheeler Robinson, op. cit. 151-57)
SOWD is the Old Testament Hebrew word for “assembly”, “circle of people in council”, or “confidential talk, secret.” It is similar in meaning to the New Testament “musterion” or mystery. For example, in the King James version, SOWD is translated “secret” (e.g. Amos 3:7, where it literally means “what is going on in the heavenly council”)
At the head of this ancient SOWD was the divine Triad, i.e., the Father, Mother, and Son. (The following scholars have investigated this Triad extensively: D. Nielson, Ras Shamra Mythologie und bibische Theologie, Abhandlungen Fur die kunde des Morgenlandes, Bd. 2, #4, 2: Die Mutergottin in Kanaan, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, 1938, 526-51; Julian Morgenstern, Some Significant Antecedents of Christianity, Leiden, 1966, 82ff; 96; Maria Hofner, Die Vorislamitischen Religionen Arabiens, Stutgart, 1970, 245-46; and William F. Albright [FSAC], 173, 247)
William F. Albright writes about the beliefs of the people who recorded the word of God as we have it in the Old Testament. He says that the Hebrews believed in “a father, El, a mother whose specific name or names remain obscure (perhaps Elat or Anath), and a son appears as the storm-god, probably named Shaddai, ‘the One of the Mountain(s);’” (Albright, FSAC, 247). The name “Shaddai” appears throughout the Old Testament as one of Yahweh’s names translated in the KJV as “God Almighty”, indicating that he was once considered to be the son of El.
Rapael Patai has shown that the Triad was often extended into a Tetrad because the Son – like the Father – was also joined by a wife. Thus we end up with a pattern of father, mother, son, and son’s wife, perpetuating the relationship into successive generations. This Tetrad appears throughout the near east alongside the original Triad. (Patai, The Hebrew Goddes, New York, 1967, 164-70)
That such a polytheistic belief actually existed in early Israel, where it survived for many millennia, is proven by the fact that medieval Jews still retained it as an important part of their Kabbalistic doctrine. (Ibid, 156-58) These Jews gave the added explanation that the four letters of the Tetragrammaton, YHWH, secretly corresponded to a heavenly tetrad of Father-Mother-Son-Son’s Wife. (Ibid, 162-64)
Another scholar, J.J.M. Roberts, says that the head of all Semitic pantheons was the great Father “El”, “Il”, etc. (J.J.M.Roberts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon, Baltimore, 1972, 32, 34)
El’s Hebrew name was often given in the majestic plural as “Eloheim”. In most pantheons, El tended to be passive; hence, a younger god – generally his son – served as “executive” power in his stead, and as the active agent of creation. Thus Proverbs 30:4 asks concerning the two Creators: “What is His name and what is the name of His son?” (Prov. 30:4, see also Heb 1:1-2)
Otto Eissfeldt and many others, have convincingly shown that the Israelite El was “an entity different from… and superior to Yahweh.” (Otto Eissfelt, El and Yahweh, Journal of Semitic Studies 1, 1956, 25-37; T.J. Meek, University of Toronto Quartely, 1939, 196; J.A. Emerton, The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery, Journal of Theological Studies, 9, 1958, 240-42, and many others. See also John 14:12,28; Matt. 26:39; Luke 23:46; John 20:17))
Cyrus H. Gordon has recently cited evidence that El and Yahweh were known as Father and Son in the Ras Shamra tablets, ca. 400 BC. He writes, “We now know that the latter is the former’s son,” (Gordon, addendum to Before Columbus, New York, 1973 edition, 169)
Other scholars have demonstrated this relationship in the Old Testament. Deuteronomy 32:8-9, for example, clearly shows that El and Yahweh were separate and distinct: “When the Most High [El Elyon] divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the sons of God; Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob the lot of his inheritance.” (Deu. 32: 8-9, brackets added)
Notice the distinction between the two persons “El Elyon”, translated as “Most High”, and “Yahweh” the son. This is clearly another Biblical reference to the head god (who is the Father) and the Son who is Yahweh or Jesus. This is consistent with the meeting of the gods spoken of in Genesis 1:1, and other verses. It also confirms that Old Testament doctrine, early Christian doctrine, and LDS doctrine are all one and the same. It confirms that Jesus and Jehovah are just two names for the same person and that Jesus/Jehova is separate and distinct from the Father.
In examining this verse it is also significant to note that in the Masoretic text, and the KJV which comes from it, the words are altered from the original “sons of God” to “sons of Israel.” But earlier texts such as the Septuagint and the recently discovered Qumran text, which dates over 1000 years earlier than any previous Hebrew text, confirm the earlier rendition.
Early Christian versions of this same Bible text (Deu. 32: 8-9) also show that EL or Eloheim and Yahweh were once believed to be separate and distinct individuals. For example, the early Christian writing Clementine Homilies makes Yahweh both “son” and “Lord” who received the Hebrews as his people from the “Most High” or the Father. In other words, the early Christians believed that the Father and the Son were separate and distinct individuals and the early Christians use Deuteronomy 32:8-9 to show this.
The early Christian writing Clementine Recognitions also describes the “sons of God” as archangels, chief of whom is Christ. In other words, they believed that when the head god called a meeting of the gods, the sons of God were gathered with Christ as the chief son. Another early Christian document, the Pseudo-Cyprian (De centisma sexigisma tricesma) declares that this “chief archangel” was the same one whom Isaiah called “Lord of hosts,” or in other words, Yahweh (e.g. Isa 3:1)
It is now becoming recognized that the original Biblical religion was polytheistic in the sense that there are more than one god but monotheistic in the sense that the ancient Israelites worshiped only one of them. Early references to this, such as Genesis 3:22 “the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.”, are finally beginning to be accepted for what they really say.
The concept of a plurality of gods is now being recognized by Scholars as prevalent in Biblical and post-Biblical Judaism, according to a recent scholarly, non-LDS work by Peter Hayman (“Monotheism – A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?,” Journal of Jewish Studies, 42: 1-15, Spring 1991, as cited by Peterson and Ricks, p.78)
William Dever, the worlds most renowned American biblical archaeologist has now published his book entitled “Did God have a Wife.”
Hayman writes:
“The theme of ‘becoming like one of us’ reveals itself as the lurking subtext of Judaism from Adam to Nachman of Bratslav. But how does this material square with the supposed transcendental monotheism of Judaism from the post-exilic period on? Not at all, as far as I can see!… [Many Jewish mythical texts] presuppose that humans can become divine and dispose of the powers of God.” (Hayman, pp. 4-5)
Extensive literature, for example, deals with human ascension to heaven as deification, with Enoch as a common example. Evidence for this from early Christianity and the Enoch literature is treated by Alan F. Segal in Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (Yale, New Haven, CT, 1960, pp. 22, 34-71, as cited by Peterson and Ricks, p. 78).
As an early Jewish midrash or scriptural commentary expressed the belief, “The Holy One will in the future call all of the pious by their names, and give them a cup of elixir of life in their hands so that they should live and endure forever. (And He will also) reveal to all the pious in the world to come the Ineffable Name with which new heavens and a new earth can be created, so that all of them should be able to create new worlds.”
The possibility of human deification was held by that “champion of orthodoxy,” Athanasius (e.g., see Keith E. Norman,”Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University, 1980, pp. 77-106; and Clyde L. Manschreck, A History of Christianity in the World, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1985, p. 62, both as cited by Ricks and Peterson, p. 78).
We find it in early Orthodox tradition as well, for the ‘chief idea of St. Maximus [who died in 662 A.D.] as of all of Eastern theology, [was] the idea of deification” (S.L. Epifanovic as quoted by Jaroslav Pelikan, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700). The Christian Tradition, vol. 2, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1974, p. 10, as cited by Peterson and Ricks, p. 79).
Biblical scholar Lowell handy treats the subject of the great council in Heaven where the gods met and directed the affairs of the earth. In his book “Among the Host of Heaven” he says “The Bible calls the assembled beings, the host of heaven” or “the heavenly host” and says it was widely understood that these were the gods in the plural who made up the heavenly host in Judah and Israel.
The idea of a council of gods who direct the affairs of man is found in the terms “sode” which means council, “,ped” which means meeting or assembly, “Adagh” which is the congregation, “Kedushean” which means the “Holy Ones”, and “Saba” which is the host. These terms are used throughout the Bible and refer to the council of gods. This is mentioned by non LDS scholars such as Dexter Calendar in the book “Adam in Myth and History, An Ancient Israelite Perspective on the Primal Human.”
Another interesting term is “The Saints” which is the technical term for the “Holy Ones” who are members of the “Heavenly Assembly.”
Amos 3:7 refers to this council. The word for “secret” in this reference is”sode” which is the council in heaven. God reveles his secrets to the prophets which come from the council of gods in heaven.
Jeremiah 23:18 says that you can distinguish a false prophet from a true prophet because a true prophet has stood in the council.
Ernst Benz, a non_Mormon scholar, 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 excellance.” (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, p. 80.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb
That prior history of polytheism certainly makes sense in light of one of the commandments, then: “Thou shalt have no God before me.” Not, “Thou shalt have no other God at all.”

dhrogers
Yes, scholars have noted that throughout the Bible there is a theme of a head God who presides over the other gods. Thus, the head God says “Let US make man in OUR image and after OUR likeness” ( Genesis 1:26-27, emphasis added)
And “let US go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” (Genesis 11:5-7, emphasis added).
SOWD is the Old Testament Hebrew word for “assembly”, “circle of people in council”, or “confidential talk, secret.” It is similar in meaning to the New Testament “musterion” or mystery. For example, in the King James version, SOWD is translated “secret” (e.g. Amos 3:7, where it literally means “what is going on in the heavenly council”)
Thus, Amos was referring to the idea that God makes known to his prophets the “secret,” or what goes on in the heavenly council. This is repeated throughout the Bible, for instance: “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.” (Psalms 82:1)
As one scholar notes :
“The existence of other gods is not denied in the first commandment of the decalog itself; in fact it presupposes their existence and forbids the Israelites to worship them.” (Roland de Vaux, The Early History of Israel, Philadelphia, 1968, p 463)

Raywadsworth
Ok, making sure it works, Journal of discources is a collection of notes that were taken from what Brigham Young supposidly said. It is not Joseph Smith, and it is not part of the cannon of the church.

JWH
What color is the unicorn?

Romney vs. Evangelicals?

Live Blogroll

Wizbang Pop!

Popular Now

Socialize

Subscribe by Email

About

Ad Networks