Joseph Smith - The King Follett Discourse | Historic Wisdom

[@anonymouslife3777]

In 1844 this man was touching on the beginnings of metaphysics and the core fundamentals of modern science from a spiritual perspective. It's incredible really.

[@SkinnyGreekGod]

😂 The guy had 30 wives, married a 14 year old and was a convicted fraudster. H

[@JohnMGilbert]

So what if he had 100 wives. What business is that of yours?

[@THECABIN-FC]

​@@SkinnyGreekGodDavid and Solomon had many wives are they false prophets?

[@THECABIN-FC]

​@@SkinnyGreekGodthere is no proof of him being a fraud. Get a life

[@SkinnyGreekGod]

@@THECABIN-FC They weren't prophets 😂. Also, they didnt lie about about it. Nd I think both David and Joe here are scum for ever marrying a child or getting involced with one and the God that allowed that to happen is just the same

[@eurasiancrusader5048]

Thanks for uploading this

[@saintcore]

No worries at all

[@1stevecy]

“I defy the Pope and all his laws. . . if God spare my life ere many years, I will cause a boy that driveth the plow, shall know more of the scripture then thou doest.” Tyndale

[@davidjanbaz7728]

He wasn't talking about Joseph Smith : Oh the foolishness of you and the counterfeit religion of Mormonism.

[@TheForgottenMan270]

​@@davidjanbaz7728You do realize that Pope means Bishop, right? It was a word used to describe every bishop in the Catholic church. Which makes it interesting, because Peter, who the Catholics claim he was the first Pope, was actually an apostle. And bishops were under the jurisdiction of the apostles. Now, if you want to call the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a false church, that's your choice and opinion, and it will always be strictly an opinion. So your opinion will not alter the truth that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's church upon the earth. Since you feel God's church is a counterfeit religion you best be working on convincing God of it since He's the one who declared it is His church.

[@JpVicvega]

@@davidjanbaz7728 “In the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God” - Rabbi Gamaliel

[@richlopez5896]

@@TheForgottenMan270 "Pope" means "Papa" and is simply a loving term used for the bishop of Rome that heads the Church. The apostles kept the Catholic Church going by ordaining bishops to succeed them and keep the faith going. Popes Linus(2 Tim 4:21) and Pope Clement(Phil 4:2-3). “Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]”- Eusebius of Caesarea (Church History 3:4:9-10 [A.D. 312] The Latter Day Saints are Joseph Smith's sect on earth. They have no connection to either Jesus or any apostle. same for the thousands of other manmade sects since 1517.

[@richlopez5896]

@@TheForgottenMan270 Bishop means overseer and pope is used for the bishop of Rome who is the successor of St. Peter. Jesus Christ is who established His catholic Church in 33 A.D. St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he should desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251] “There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering” (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253] Joseph Smith is who claimed his uninspired sect was God's. Same goes for other false prophets like Ellen G. White and Charles Taze Russell would also do in the 1800's. None of them were alive in Christ's time or ever met him or any apostle. There have been thousands of manmade sects created since 1517. “There are many other things which most properly can keep me in her [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15-17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house”- St. Augustine, bishop of Hippo (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]

[@johngundaker5655]

The things of God knoweth no man-except they be revealed-in the time, place, and way God permits. If God defends Joseph Smith then what do all of the triflings of men sum to? I want a religion with Gods Hands all over it, not just mans. I agree with John Taylors reference of The Dispensation Head Prophet and Apostle and Seer of these Latter Days; Joseph Smith has done more for the salvation of mankind than any other save Jesus Christ only. The truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it( in our time, place, and hands) and may we value each and every doctrine till we are in the light fully and joyfully because it is possible, otherwise there might not be as much significanance to this time as there truly is. I so witness in the name above all others, that of Jesus Christ.

[@southeastdesigns2]

It's good to hear from Smith directly, so there is no ambiguity about his teachings (e.g. overt heresy and charlatanism).

[@ericredd5590]

How can you trust Joseph on this teaching? In the lectures on faith and JS teaches us the importance of knowing God so we can worship him, he teaches God is a personage of spirit.

[@matildabanana3516]

Provide a reference so we can look at the actual words. That’s a weird accusation since Joseph’s very first experience with God was seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ standing and talking to him, with their bodies. It was one of the first things he learned about God and Jesus and shared about, for which he was persecuted. Even if he was a fake (he wasn’t!) that would be pretty stupid to say he saw “two personages” and then say God is a spirit. I’ve never heard of that, and I highly doubt it. Check original sources.

[@ericredd5590]

@ lest you think I am deceiving you, search for Lectures on Faith, go to lecture 5 The Godhead In verse 2; ….The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power… This is in line with the BOM that states God is the great spirit. How do we now know God has a physical body? When did this teaching change? Why is it still incorrect in the lectures on faith and in the BOM? BY taught Adam was God. Then later prophets refuted this teaching. So, JS and BY were both confused about basic aspects of God and his nature and identity.

[@THECABIN-FC]

Joseph Smith is a prophet of God!

[@saintcore]

Amen!

[@richarner3856]

He fails the Biblical test for a prophet

[@Saint_nobody]

3:18 "think celestial". 😉

[@Saint_nobody]

5:43 what about ☪️

[@saintcore]

@@Saint_nobody Every man has a right to be a false or true prophet

[@KeithGonzalez-v1z]

There were no God's formed before me neither shall there be after me. Isaiah 43.10 also 44.6 I am the first and I am last and beside me there is no God.

[@Mike-rt2vp]

Faith without works is dead. Except man is born of water and of the spirit he can no one enter the kingdom of heaven. Other sheep I have which are not of this fold them all so I must bring and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.

[@christianerwin3964]

Ye are gods

[@michaelparks5669]

the Hebrew says their is no other JEHOVAH before me get your translation correct.

[@Ubrfnd]

​@michaelparks5669 Where did hear that? The origional language uses the word "el" (אֵל). This is a common, generic word for God or gods throughout the old testament.

[@michaelparks5669]

@@Ubrfnd it uses Jehovah in verse 11: to make it clear Isaiah is taking about the Savior There is no Savior beside me. Jesus/ Jehovah said "He that overcomes shall I grant to sit with me ON THE THRONE ..AS I OVERCAME and sit next to the Father....Jesus is saying he overcame and so should we. Revelation 3:21 Thus Jesus was not always God. John chapter 17: Jesus prays to the Father and asks the Father to make the apostles and those that follow them to become one with God as Jesus and the Father are one. Thus they are Gods. Early Christian Bishops taught that God (Jesus) became a man in order to teach man how to become a God.. To sit on the throne means to become a God. Peter taught we could have the Divine nature 2 Peter 1:3-4 . to have the the divine nature, to be one with God as Jesus is. , to sit on the throne , ALL mean to be a God... Jesus said.. I said " Ye are Gods" Do you believe Jesus?

[@johnrowley310]

Jesus said are there any other gods? I know not any....

[@christianerwin3964]

He also said ye are gods

[@christianerwin3964]

No translation uses an apostrophe

[@christianerwin3964]

If I was a king from that era and I wanted to show that I was the greatest King, I would say there are no Kings before me, or I know no other King but me, historical context is key to understanding.

[@robertstewart8330]

@@christianerwin3964 you lack context. He is speaking to the judges that we supposed to judge justly, and didn't do so. He then condemned them for such. This is not a supportive text but one of condemnation :)

[@ChaChaDancin]

It’s amazing that he taught different things about God than God has taught about God, yet millions believe him. Itching ears syndrome.

[@SimonDaumMusic]

Even more amazing is that even the God (in the Bible) teaches different things about himself, and yet millions believe the Bible to be inerrent, univocal and inspired on the nature of God, though what we define as "inspired" actually originates from the greek word "theopneustos", meaning "God-Breathed" in the sense of "livening", also in the Bible refering to ointments, springs of water and even sandals, and yet people claim every single word of the Bible is the literal word of God, and base their judgement upon other religioons upon their "self-inerrant" definition of what "inerrant" actually means, which is why even those that unite at least in one thing, which is how wrong Mormons are, actually disagree on so many other things.. But not just that, you even have Jesus himself teach different, contradictive versions of hell... Now, which Jesus is the right one to follow here? Not just that, but academic consensus on many topics such as creation ex nihilo, monotheism in the Old Testament, Solar Scriptura and so forth contradict main stream Evangelism, and yet people prefer to put their own Dogma above the actual data, and yet still prefer to focus on the seemingly false doctrines of others, not applying the same kind of criticle lenses in regards to their own faith.. The Bible is clear, the one who does the will of the Father is not the one who knows all doctrine, or who has the faith to remove mountains, or works mighty miralces (See 1 Coriinthinas 13), but is somone like the good Samaritian, who did the will of the Father by showing mercy and charity, being conisdered being "good" by Jesus, though he was considered Pagan by the jews, erring in doctringe, believing in a false God.. And so James was right, what will matter in the end when we stand before God, how we will be judged, is the amount of mercy we brought forth towards others.. (James 2:13) Meaning, what makes up true diciples of Christ is neither mainly their faith, nor their works, nor their gifts of the spirit, nor their knowing and understanding of all doctrines, but it actually is how much we love God, how much we love our neighbours, and how much charity we bring forth, for those that love God in that manner, know God, for God is love, and those that do not bring forth these "good fruits" of mercy and charity, no matter how devout Christian they may seemingly be, will neither know God, nor receive a good judgement one day.

[@ChaChaDancin]

@@SimonDaumMusic wow, what a self-contradicting, circular logic, what-about-ist wall of text that was. Nope, Mormons believe in a different deity than Christians do. And it isn’t the God revealed in the Bible.

[@SimonDaumMusic]

​@@ChaChaDancin Tell me where excactly I contradict, back it up with the scriptures aswell as with the current academic consensus (what I did by the way), and then mayby anyone can give any weight to your mere accusations against Mormonism (aswell as to your claims about what all Christianity and the Bible stands for). Unless you do so it remains nothing but thin air..being of benefit to noone except your own satisfaction.

[@ChaChaDancin]

@@SimonDaumMusic get over yourself. This isn’t about you or your meandering attempt to change the subject. It is about the nature of God, which God has revealed throughout time as recorded in the Bible. Joseph Smith contradicted all of that with his King Follett sermon, where he claimed that God is not really God, but rather just an exalted man who earned his god stripes through his own efforts at some point in the past, and awarded to him by some older god. Itching ears, like I said. Joseph and all the other Mormon “prophets” most definitely fit the description of the “false prophets” the Bible warns against in the last days. You are the victim of a fraud. Not an attack, just stating a fact.

[@SimonDaumMusic]

@@ChaChaDancin The main difference between you and LDS believers is that they believe in modern day revelation, whilst you most likely believe in "Sola Scriptura", and so there will always be differences, just as there are differences between the old and the New Testament, and so the first step when you want to disprove the concept of modern day revelation is to prove that "Sola Scriptura" is actually taught within the Bible, and then we acually would have a foundation for a good discussion.. until then, it remains nothing but claims that everyone can bring up against anything. Alone the claim "all Christians" believe this or that is so one-sided and false.. Even the authors on the Bible and Jesus himself teach contradictive things.... and either you have never noticed it at all, or your bend it to make it fit and work for your own dogma. Just take a look at the Churchfathers and how many of them believed in "becoming Gods"... are they now also all no longer Christians because they believed such?

[@UnknownUser-dy6ij]

THE APOSTLE JOHN WARNS US TO BEWARE OF DECEIVERS: "Anyone who *goes too far* and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. The one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting." 2 John 1:9-10

[@michaelparks5669]

see revelations 3:21 Jesus was not always God.

[@richlopez5896]

@@michaelparks5669 Jesus was always God. The first time St. Matthew uses the language of fulfillment is in the proclamation of Christ’s birth: All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel (which means “God with us”) (Matt. 1:22-23). For Matthew, this is the ultimate fulfillment of prophecy in Jesus’ life. He is Emmanuel. He is “God with us.” The passage Matthew is quoting is Isaiah 7:14, in which the prophet is trying to convince King Ahaz to trust the Lord rather than make alliance with his pagan neighbors. At the time of the original prophecy, it was interpreted as a metaphor: God will guide his people Israel-he will be “with them.” But Matthew sees much more than a metaphor here: he sees a literal fulfillment of God being “with us.” Jesus is not just the promised messiah; he is God himself come in the flesh. In fact, the inclusion of this first fulfilled prophecy sets the tone for Matthew’s Gospel. Matthew stocks his Gospel with clues pointing to Christ’s divinity. In a sense, Matthew is saying in 1:22-23, “Jesus is more than just a prophet, he is more than a man. He is God himself among us. Now I will demonstrate to you how this inexplicable reality is true.” Before we examine two of these clues, let’s skip to the conclusion. Matthew begins his Gospel with the announcement of the divinity of Jesus; he concludes it the same way via an inclusio, a literary device in which the author brackets a story with related material at the beginning and the end to emphasize a specific point. When an author uses an inclusio, it’s a sign to the reader that he’s making an important point. Inclusios are commonly found in sections of biblical texts, but here Matthew creates an inclusio for his entire Gospel: in the very last line (28:20), Jesus tells his disciples, “I am with you always, to the close of the age.” See the connection? The coming of Emmanuel means God is with us. Jesus promises, “I am with you.” Not only do we have the connecting promises to be “with us,” we also see a connection between Jesus and “I am.” In the book of Exodus, when Moses asks God for his name so he might tell his people who sent him, God answers, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” Jesus is this “I AM.” By telling his disciples, “I am with you always,” Jesus is fulfilling the very words of the prophet Isaiah that God himself will be with us. Now that we’ve seen how Matthew wraps his Gospel in an inclusio that declares that, in Christ, God is now with us, let’s look at two of the many “divinity clues” Matthew lays out throughout his Gospel to lead us to accept his conclusion: the power Jesus has to forgive sins, and his declaration that he is the “Lord of the Sabbath.”

[@davapalm]

That's what Joseph Smith said here. He taught from the scriptures.

[@mvj1153]

Joseph Smith of the Mormons had the same experience. An "angel" named Moroni came to him with the same nonsense and their own book and gospel… And so have a few other cults. The Bible says in Galatians 1:8 "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." The Bible foresees all of these false religions. And gave us warnings way before Islam was even created.

[@atlantisam8262]

​@mvj1153 It's very fortunate then that God The Father and The Lord Jesus Christ came down to inform Joseph Smith of the true and at the time lost gospel

[@cmitc01]

What use does a god have with blood? Do his cells require oxygen?

[@Jacob0506]

Some speculate that an immortal body uses “light,” or the power of God, rather than blood. I guess we’ll see someday.

[@RaulLuna-m5b]

👆to add to that. I can’t remember where I heard buy it is glory that flows through his veins.

[@atlantisam8262]

God's body is also described as flesh and bone, I've never heard flesh and blood. Perhaps blood is a replacement for eternal light

[@curtclapier435]

I never understood why this doctrine is so controversial. It is the most inspiring of all doctrines of Christ to me. What do we think happens when we reach heaven? We just sit around and "sing praises to God"? Or do we become like him? What does it mean to be joint heirs with Christ? As a father I would want my kids to become as good or better than myself. If I was a perfect father I would want them to have all the traits, powers and characteristics that I have. To me it is a fundamental difference in belief of who God is. If he is a mystical, intangible, inunderstandable universal power I guess opposing this doctrine makes sense. But if he is literally the Father of our spirts then I see no other logical conclusion than this doctrine. And for me it is what most motivates me. With out this doctrine what is the point of the commandments? They become just an arbitrary set of rules. If he is our Father and wants us to be like him then the commandments are the only way to become as he is. And, since we fall short, we need Christ to make up the gap and heal and make us more than we can be without him. I love this doctrine. If you are hating on it take a breath, take a minute and really ponder it, really pray about it. You may see the love and beauty in it.

[@bl4ze1t38]

This doctrine is controversial because it is fundamentally incorrect. God is the first and the last. There is no other God before Him, nor will there be any after Him. He is the eternal almighty creator, pre-existing everything and being the absolute cause of everything. To teach that He is an embodied and exalted man, one who was once a mere man like us, is to deny who and what God is fundamentally.

[@jamescannon7935]

​@@bl4ze1t38How bout you let God himself tell you what he is?

[@robertgregson2299]

Was this given at conference??? Or funeral ???

[@Misa_Susaki]

It was at General Conference, but it was right after the death of one of Joseph's friends, named King Folliet.

[@staleydu1]

It was not at general conference. It was at the funeral of King Follett. Hence the name

[@leonardojerkovic3618]

This discourse is departing from monotheism. Smith beleived in many gods

[@hosoiarchives4858]

The Bible teaches plural gods of Elohim

[@leonardojerkovic3618]

@@hosoiarchives4858 certnaily not. Hebrews even recite famous shema every day.

[@hosoiarchives4858]

@@leonardojerkovic3618 ok cool but Elohim is plural and only makes sense when you translate it plural

[@leonardojerkovic3618]

@@hosoiarchives4858 if you ever read a bible book of genesis in hebrew language you would know that elohim always take a singular verb.

[@hosoiarchives4858]

@@leonardojerkovic3618 Elohim is still plural. It means Gods

[@michaelparks5669]

revelation 3:21.

[@jamesbaldwin7676]

The Bible begins with "In the beginning..." But the beginning of what? The beginning of all creation and the beginning of time itself. Joseph argued however, that you can't have a beginning without an ending. That's like having a ring which has been cut. Perhaps Joseph was referring to a period before the beginning of our space and our time? If so, the King Follett discourse, doesn't contradict the Bible in any way, since the Bible only begins at the beginning.

[@christianerwin3964]

The gospel, and it's absolute entire fullness, truly is beyond the comprehension of man. If we knew all that it had our heads would explode. Luckily, prophets are pretty good mouthpieces. And really good at dumbing things down a bit

[@UnknownUser-dy6ij]

​@@christianerwin3964 the gospel is simple enough for a child to understand. Jesus said "unless you become like a child, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 18:3). Jesus presents the good news in a simple statement in John 3:16.

[@christianerwin3964]

Yes, on this earth, but In eternity we will have a fullness of knowledge and I feel we will see a much bigger picture, one that we have only an earthly idea of .

[@jamesbaldwin7676]

​@UnknownUser-dy6ij True enough, but the King Follet Discourse is not a part of our Gospel, nor was it delivered in a church meeting. It was a private sermon given at a private funeral. We may all believe it, but that doesn't make it official doctrine or official Gospel.

[@roachemani]

@@jamesbaldwin7676It’s actually a sermon given at the 1844 april general conference just where they happened to have the funeral as well. Many prophets and apostles onwards have quoted from this particular sermon because it contains truth in it. The oft used of all is when Joseph said ‘If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves’ and more which I can’t be bothered be quoting 😂but if you listen to the general conference talks from the 80s up you’ll see the citation of the king fillet discourse mentioned many times by the apostles.

[@doughoward7183]

Will he ascend the mountain of the Most High? Will he set his throne above the stars of heaven? Yeah, that's the same line Lucifer used.

[@jetumbot]

Thanks for sharing! ❤✝️ Romans 8:16-17 KJV 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; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

[@DestinyAlready]

Well Lucifer wanted to be god so it’s possible Lucifer could’ve said that.

[@greesemonkeyarmy]

The first lie told by Satan is the central tenet of LDS theology.

[@MisterE180]

No it’s not

[@greesemonkeyarmy]

@@MisterE180 So Satan did not say , "You will be like God'? JS said repetitively, that God had been a man like you and me, and if you merit it, you can become a god also. Seems to me, that is the same promise. The LDS is a satanic cult. Leave while you can before you face the fires of hell.

[@kathleenwharton2139]

This guy didn’t get it Right either! Just another wolf in sheeps clothing. 😊❤

[@MissionaryScottishWarrior]

Wish you didn't use AI

[@billmartin3561]

HERESY. Men cannot become gods.

[@michaelparks5669]

then why did early christian bishops teach that men could throgh Jesus?

[@richlopez5896]

@@michaelparks5669 I'm an expert on early Christianity with 20 years of studying the Early Church. NONE taught that we can become Gods. What the early Catholic Church is called Theosis and is not the blasphemy Joseph Smith would invent. “Theosis,” “Deification,” or “Divinization,” and it actually has a solid pedigree among orthodox theologians, apologists, fathers, doctors, and saints of the Church. But where did they get this idea? After all, Scripture clearly teaches that there is only one God. This is evident from writings in both testaments including historical, prophetic, poetic books as well as gospels and epistles (e.g., Dt. 6:4, 2 Kgs. 19:19; Isa. 45:5; Ps. 86:10; Jn. 5:44; 1 Cor. 8:4; etc.). Further, it is clear from Scripture that men are not God and vice versa (e.g., Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Hos. 11:9, etc.). However, Scripture also teaches that man can become God-like. “I say, ‘You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you’” (Ps. 82:6 cf. Jn. 10:34) “The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one” (Jn. 17:22-23) “Know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God” (Eph. 3:19) “You may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature“ (2 Pet. 1:4) “Beloved, we are God’s children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him“ (1 Jn. 3:2) These passages suggest what theologians have called the “Formula of Exchange” - a teaching directly tied to the role of Jesus’ Incarnation’s in our salvation. However, neither these nor any other verses mean that human nature can be changed into the divine nature of God. What they mean is that human nature can partake in the divine nature of God. So, if quotes from Church fathers, doctors, saints, popes, etc. are found that seem to indicate otherwise, they are not being understood correctly. While it is easy to compile quotes from various writers that “clearly” state that man can become God, there is always a theological context that must be kept in mind. The guiding principle concerning these sorts of statements is that when divinity is predicated of humanity, it is according to participation in grace, not to generation by nature. In other words, “divinity” in these cases does not refer to a change in what something is, but rather what it is like. For example, when we participate in the Eucharist, we “become the body of Christ” (see 1 Cor. 10:16-17) - but we do not become the divine savior of the world! The distinction between participation in grace and generation by nature is critical if one is to understand what these orthodox theologians are saying - one that, if missed or misunderstood, can lead to the kind of metaphysical confusion one finds in Mormonism or the Word Faith movement. Here an illustration might help. St. John of Damascus speaks of being our “inflamed and deified by the participation in the divine fire.” Fire makes for a good analogy for participation. Consider a frying pan being heated over a fire. When the pan is put into contact with fire, it participates in the fire’s heat (i.e., it becomes hot). Now, the heat of the fire is what the fire is by nature, but the heat of the pan is that which it has by participation. When fire heats the pan, heat can be said to be part of what the pan is - but both the fire and the pan remain unchanged according to their basic natures. The pan becomes hot but it never becomes fire - hot or not, it remains a pan. Because both the fire and the pan can be said to “be” heat, there is an analogical sense in which the pan can be said to “be” fire - but this must be understood as referring literally to the pan’s participation in the fire’s heat - not that the pan literally becomes fire by nature. In the same way that we can say (accurately, but only analogically), that the pan can “become” fire, we can say that man can “become” God. Participation also implies difference. God does not simply have more power than man, God’s power is of a wholly different kind. The same goes for all of God’s attributes: presence, knowledge, love, goodness, etc. God’s presence is also entirely unlike that of us human persons, as we must be in a particular place, while God is everywhere. So to say than God is present at church is not the same thing as saying a man is present at church. Similarly, even if a man were to somehow know all things, he would not be omniscient in the way God is. God knows all things as their creator - their first cause. This gives God a kind of knowledge man will never have, even if man could in theory learn all facts. In saving mankind, God’s grace does not destroy nature, but perfects it; yet, even a perfected human nature is still limited to being what it is. It will always remain finite - and the distance between finite and infinite is so great that it is not a difference so much as a complete distinction. The same will always be true of God and man. God is absolutely unique and the infinite chasm between the Creator and the creature can never be crossed. It is clear from the writings of those who make such statements that no orthodox theologian is confused on this point, and such statements need to be read with the above distinctions in mind.

[@michaelburgess6556]

Utter nonsense

[@papabearfox8791]

the wisdom of a charlatan

[@vonsowards1297]

That’s what the Pharisees said about Jesus