By Bill McKeever
That mere mortal men have the capacity to eventually become Gods is a doctrine that has been defended by LDS leaders since the early years of the Mormon Church. At the root of this concept is the idea that mankind is the literal offspring of God. Speaking in the Tabernacle on August 8, 1852, Brigham Young stated,
"The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like Himself; when we have been proved in our present capacity, and been faithful with all things He puts into our possession. We are created, we are born for the express purpose of growing up from the low estate of manhood, to become Gods like unto our Father in heaven. That is the truth about it, just as it is" (Journal of Discourses 3:93).
The Mormon doctrine of deification is fraught with biblical contradictions. If humans can, in fact become Gods, then it denies the monotheistic message of the Bible. Consider that there are some 12 million current members in the LDS Church. If half of these members are male, this means we have a potential for 6 million Gods who are currently living on the earth!
Since defending this position is extremely difficult from the Bible, Mormon apologists have tried to compare their understanding of godhood with the doctrine of theosis found in Eastern Orthodox traditions. It is a horrible comparison, to be sure, but one that LDS apologists continue to make nonetheless.
In the booklet titled Latter-day Christianity: 10 Basic Issues, editors Robert Millet and Noel Reynolds quote several early church fathers and philosopher C.S. Lewis in order to bring some semblance of respectability to the LDS practice. They insist that the "doctrine of the deification of man is not exclusive teaching of the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Rather, it can be found in early Christian history." They then proceed to quote several patristic writers (church fathers) as support for their conclusion.
Mormons can spin the statements of the past all they want, but the fact of the matter is that there is no similarity linking these statements with Mormonism. First of all, theosis, or "union with God," speaks in part of a desire or perceived ability to seek God's holiness. It never attempts to undermine the biblical truth that God is one nor does this teaching give hope to believers that they can expect to become ontologically a God. In other words, theosis does not support the notion that Christians will ever achieve the essence or being of a God.
In their excellent book titled Mormon America, Richard and Joan Ostling spend several pages examining this alleged compatibility between Eastern theosis and Mormon godhood.
"Robert Millet, speaking at a 1998 Church Educational System Fireside, said, 'A study of Christian history reveals that the doctrine of the deification of man was taught at least into the fifth century by such notables as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Athanasius, and Augustine.' Stephen Robinson in his books Are Mormons Christians? and How Wide the Divide? cites such patristic authors as Irenaeus ('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') and Athanasius ('The Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods. . .')." (p.312.)
The Ostlings noted that scholars who specialize in patristic writings do not agree with these conclusions.
"... the basic theological assumptions that lie behind those quotes-the assumptions of the patristics and of Mormon theology - are radically and fundamentally different. Millet's Fireside address, for example, expressed standard Mormon orthodoxy when he said, 'God is not of another species.' Traditional Christian scholars say the God of the early church fathers is monotheistic, always the self-existent creator of another species."
Jaroslav Pelikan, the Sterling Professor Emeritus of History at Yale University who is considered one of the world's leading scholars in the history of Christianity, stated,
"It was as essential for theosis as it was for the incarnation itself not to be viewed as analogous to Classical Greek theories about the promotion of human beings to divine rank, and in that sense not to be defined by natural theology at all; on such errors they pronounced their 'Anathema!'" (p.312.)
After citing several experts in this field, the Ostlings concluded their chapter by saying,
"It seems clear that support for the Mormon doctrines of a corporeal and limited God, eternal progress, and deification cannot be found in Eastern Orthodoxy, the early church fathers, or the twentieth-century writings of C. S. Lewis" (p.313).
Despite many clear denials, Mormon spokespersons still insist on making this erroneous comparison. Unless it can be demonstrated that they have never seen these rebuttals, we can only conclude that their attempts to mislead are deliberate.