Chapter 4
THEOSIS AND EXALTATION:
InN DIALOGUE
In the book How Wide the Divide? A Mormon
‘and an Evangelical in Conversation, an evangeli-
cal professor, Craig L. Blomberg, from Denver
Seminary, and an LDS professor, Stephen E.
Robinson, from Brigham Young University, en-
gage in an honest exchange over the similarities
and the differences between LDS and evangelical
Christian belief. In chapter 2 they cover the topic
of “God and Deification,” and within the context
of his presentation of LDS doctrine, Professor
Robinson states the following in a footnote:
So many others in the Christian tradition have
used the term gods to refer to the glorified
saints, Evangelicals are always telling me that
these authors used the term god differently
from the way the LDS do—but I can never
understand the basis of the claim, When I
read Clement or Irenaeus or C. S. Lewis and
say, “There! That's exactly what I believe,”
Evangelicals usually answer, “No, that's not
what you believe at all”
‘The aim of this chapter is to begin to clarify why
Professor Robinson would find an equivalence to
his belief in exaltation in the doctrinal writings
of patristic authors as well as why his belief in an
exact parallel would be challenged by his non-
LDS friends. Thus, the similarities and the differ-
ences between the doctrines of theosis and exalta-
tion will be covered before offering a concise
analysis of the precise relationship between the
two doctrines in question.
Similarities
‘Terminology and Attributes
The most profound similarity between theo-
sis and exaltation is reflected in the fact that the
exact same terminology is used to describe the
status of those persons who attain the full bless-
ings of salvation: they are gods. Although the
process for attaining salvation is different, the
1. Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Con-
versation (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity, 1997), 209 n. 16, emphasis in original.42 + “Partakers of the Divine Nature”
core idea in both doctrinal systems is the same:
humans become “partakers of the divine nature.”
‘The attributes and qualities of deity become the
attributes and qualities of the divinized human
person.
The C
Another profound similarity between the doc-
trines of theosis and exaltation concerns the person
of Christ. In both patristic writings and in LDS
teachings, Jesus Christ is the one who makes hu-
man divinization a possibility. The doctrine of
theosis highlights the incarnation of Christ as the
central moment in salvation history because
through it the perfect union of humanity and di-
vinity was realized. And there is agreement that,
apart from Christ, no human person could ever
overcome the obstacles of physical or spiritual
death. Through Christ’s sacrificial death the sins
of all humanity are forgiven, and because of his
resurrection all persons who have ever lived will
experience the resurrection of their own bodies.
Christ, then, is at the heart and center of the doc-
trines of theosis and exaltation
trality of Christ,
Role of Human Works
Human cooperation and participation in the
process of salvation is essential to both theasis
and exaltation. The patristic doctrine of synergy
and the LDS doctrine of grace can be described
as both-and systems when it comes to the rela-
tionship between human works and divine grace
in that both teach that God does not bring about
salvation by “grace alone” Although the pri-
macy is always on the enabling power of God’s
grace, the engagement in good works is crucial
for the development of a “godly” personality. Per-
sonal growth through freely chosen virtuous ac-
tivity is essential if the new life given in baptism is
to have any effect or contribute towards the process
of divinization.
2. In LDS terminology known as “the sacrament.”
Role of Ritual
‘The doctrines of theosis and exaltation both
teach that God uses material realities, sacraments
and ordinances respectively, to communicate his
divine life and grace. In fact, the following rituals,
recognized by patristic authors as sacraments? are
similar to ordinances found in the LDS Church:
baptism, confirmation, eucharist, priesthood or-
dination, marriage, anointing of the sick with oil,
confession of sins to a priest. However, a differ-
ence does appear when it becomes a question of
which sacraments or ordinances are necessary
for divinization, such as the need for an eternal
marriage in LDS doctrine, which need is not rec-
ognized by patristic authors. Likewise, some sacra-
ments are unique to the LDS Church, such as the
endowment. As a corollary to this common belief
in the role of ritual in the process of human di-
vinization, there is also a common belief that the
context in which divinization takes place, the
church, isa hierarchically constituted reality gov-
cerned by priesthood or apostolic authority.
Eternal Progression
‘A nonstatic view of heaven is another shared
belief. Contrary to a modern mythology which
depicts heaven as that place where the saved do
nothing more than strum on harps, both the doc-
trines of theosis and exaltation understand heaven
tobe a place where divinized humans continue to
learn and grow and do. In both systems the idea
of “eternal progress” reflects a fundamental belief
that humans who become gods will continue in
progression and activity forever.
Differences
Participation vs. Growth
The most profound difference between the
doctrines of theosis and exaltation revolves aroundthe way in which humans become divinized, or
become gods. In the doctrine of theosis, diviniza-
tion comes about through participation in the di-
vine energies of the one divine nature, which di-
vine nature is fully possessed by each of the three
divine persons who comprise the Trinity—the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In the doc-
trine of exaltation, divinization comes about
through growth of a capacity which is innate to the
children born of Heavenly Parents—the Father
and his eternal companion. This difference—the
difference between participation and growth—can
be rooted in two very different ontological un-
derstandings of divine nature and human nature.
‘The doctrine of theosis presupposes that there
is a fundamental distinction between uncreated
being and created being. God, that is, the three
divine persons who are the one God, are under-
stood to be uncreated and eternal. God always
has been divine and always will be divine. Hu-
‘man persons, on the other hand, are created from
nothing—creatio ex nihilo, They are forever de-
pendent on God for existence. Thus, the divine
nature, the nature of God, is fundamentally dif-
ferent from human nature, the nature of human
persons. In fact, one can speak of an ontological
divide or chasm separating the two: the former is
uunoriginate, the latter is originate
The doctrine of exaltation presupposes that
God is of the same species as human persons.
‘There is no distinction between uncreated and
created beings or persons since all persons, divine
as well as human, are uncreated. In other words,
intelligence, the core or essence of every person
(whether divine or human) is self-existent and
eternal, uncreated and uncreatable, Through the
process of spirit birth, intelligences are clothed by
divine parents with spirit bodies and become au-
tonomous, conscious selves. And just as with hu-
‘man children in relation to their human parents,
3, See note 8 in chapter 3.
‘Theosis and Exaltation: In Dialogue + 43
the spirit children of divine parents possess the
innate capacity, as a fact of their spirit birth, to
progress and grow up into the likeness of their
divine parents.
‘Thus, for the doctrine of theosis, to become
divine means to unite in one created person both
his or her own created human nature and the un-
created divine energies of the three uncreated di-
vine persons. In other words, a divinized human
person never ceases to be created and human; but
insofar as that person is divinized, he or she be-
comes through grace what he or she is not by
nature—divine. Furthermore, to speak of diviniza-
tion by the divine energies, as opposed to the di-
vine essence, is meant to reflect the ontological
distinction between uncreated and created. Only
God—the three divine persons—is divine essen-
tially, Only the persons of the Trinity are uncre-
ated and eternal by fact of their nature. Human
persons cannot become divine essentially because
this would be a logical contradiction. What hu-
‘mans are in essence, by nature, is created and de-
pendent. The divine energies are God himself in-
sofar as he shares his uncreated nature with
created persons, thus divinizing them. In this
sense, the divinized person is always both created
and uncreated, finite and infinite: created and fi-
nite by nature, uncreated and infinite by grace, by
reason of union with God's divinizing energies.
The divinized person becomes all that God is ex-
cept for identity in essence, which is to say, with-
out ceasing to be created and finite.
In contrast, within the context of the doc-
trine of exaltation, there is no ontological divide
or distinction between human and divine—
divine and human do not refer to ontological cate-
gories” Instead, divine and human signify differ-
ent levels of progression within a continuum. In
other words, some uncreated intelligences have
progressed to the point of godhood (the Father,44 + “Partakers of the Divine Nature”
the Son, and the Holy Ghost), while other uncre-
ated intelligences have not and are thus dependent
on those who have already done so to attain god-
hood themselves (human persons). Thus, because
humans and God already share a like essence, at
some future time humans, as exalted beings, can
become exactly as God now is.
Even given this profound difference rooted in
ontology, the difference between participation
and growth, the doctrines of theosis and exalta-
tion both agree in teaching that divinized hu-
mans are always subordinate to the God who
‘makes their divinization a reality, In the case of
theosis, this subordination is clearly founded on
ontology: those who become “gods by grace” are
as dependent for their status as gods as they are
for their very existence and being. And while the
doctrine of exaltation has as premises the onto-
logical independence of human persons from
God and the innate potential of humans to be-
come gods, based on being literally children of
divine parents, this is not meant to imply that di-
vinized persons will ever become greater than
God or cease to be related to God after the at-
tainment of exaltation
Latter-day Saints do not, or atleast should not,
believe that they will ever be independent in
all eternity from their Father in heaven or
from their Savior Jesus Christ or from the Holy
Spirit. Those who are exalted by his grace will
always be “gods” (always with a small g, even
in the Doctrine and Covenants) by grace, by
an extension of his power, and will always be
subordinate to the Godhead
Despite what our critics claim, the Latter-day
Saints do not believe that human beings will
Blomberg and Robinson, How Wide the Divide? 86
Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991), 65.
6. See Doctrine and Covenants 76:58, 95; 132:19-20. These four volumes which the LDS Church recognizes
as possessing the authority of scripture are commonly referred to as the “standard works” of the Church.
7. Joseph Fielding McConkie, Answers: Straightforward Answers To Tough Doctrinal Questions (Salt Lake City
Deseret Book, 1998), 210. See James E. Faulconer, review of The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical
ever become the equals of God, or be inde
pendent of God, or that they will ever cease
to be subordinate to God?
So just as human children have within their very
being the capacity to become mature human
adults, provided they receive the assistance of
their parents, the doctrine of exaltation teaches
that while human persons are ontologically inde-
pendent of God and have within their very na
ture a capacity to become divine, they can do so,
ultimately, only by the grace of God. In this
sense, it is appropriate to refer to exalted persons
as “gods by grace” as well
The Status of the Doctrine
The doctrines of theosis and exaltation can
also be seen to differ from one another when one
examines the doctrinal status or the level of au-
thority which each has for those who profess be-
lief in it. On the one hand, exaltation is a doctrine
explicitly taught in the Doctrine and Covenants,
one of the four volumes of scripture within the
LDS Church—the other three being the Bible, the
Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus
Christ, and the Pearl of Great Price.* Because only
those revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith or
his successors which are accepted into this four-
volume canon of scripture are considered nor-
mative and binding upon the entire membership
of the LDS Church—“The standard works con-
tain a selection of revelations or scriptural utter-
ances that are the standard in directing and gov-
erning the Church”—this means that the
doctrine of exaltation possesses the highest level
of doctrinal authority.On the other hand, since the doctrine of theo-
sis is a teaching which was never formally defined
or promulgated by one of the seven Ecumenical
Councils of the undivided Catholic Church of
the first millennium, it does not possess the same,
highest level of authority as do those doctrines
which were formally proclaimed by one of the
Ecumenical Councils, To help differentiate be-
tween these two levels of doctrinal authority one
can make a distinction between the terms dogma
and doctrine. A doctrine would refer to any teach
ing of the church that is commonly taught and
believed, whereas a dogma would refer to a doc-
trine which has been definitively defined and
proclaimed by an Ecumenical Council. Thus, all
dogmas are doctrines but not all doctrines are
dogmas.
While the relation of Jesus Christ to God and
the relation of the human and the divine
within his person became the subject for doc-
trinal controversy and dogmatic definition,
the saving work of Christ remained dogmat-
ically undefined. Yet it was certainly a major
constituent of Christian doctrine—if by doc
trine we mean what the church believes,
teaches, and confesses, not only in its polemics
and creeds, but also in its liturgy and exegesis
the doctrine of the person of Christ did
become a dogma even though the doctrine of
the work of Christ did not.
However, pointing out that the doctrine of theo-
sis does not possess the highest level of doctrinal
authority is in no way meant to imply that the
doctrine is in any sense doubtful or less true for
not having been promulgated by an Ecumenical
Council. The lack of a dogmatic definition by an
Ecumenical Council in the case of theosis is, in
‘Theosis and Exaltation: In Dialogue + 45
fact, indicative of a lack of doctrinal controversy;
the doctrine did not have to be defined because it
was never seriously challenged throughout the
course of the first millennium,
‘The Experience of Divinization
Another difference between the doctrines of
theosis and exaltation concerns when human per-
sons become divinized. According to the doc-
trine of theosis, human divinization begins in
mortality with baptism since it is through bap:
tism that one first begins to participate in the di-
vinizing energies of God. However, this mortal
experience of divinization is not irrevocable.
‘Through sin, one’s divinizing relationship with
God can be broken; it can be regained, though,
through a process of repentance. Furthermore,
persons divinized through baptism will only
progress and persevere in their status of being
“gods by grace” if they grow in virtue and in their
relationship with God during their lives. The full
experience of divinization will not be realized
until the resurrection of the body takes place. In
1 sense, then, the doctrine of theosis teaches that
divinized humans are “infant gods” while in
mortality and that they will not come to maturity
until that time when their bodies are resurrected.
(On the other hand, the doctrine of exaltation
teaches that mortal life isa time of preparation for
human divinization. While the resurrection of the
body is an important and necessary step on the
path of human divinization, growth and progress
towards divinization will continue even after the
resurrection of the body. Eventually, after an un-
specified amount of time, one’s progression will be
complete and at that point divinization, and all the
blessings that pertain thereto, will be experienced
‘Analysis, by Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E, Parrish, Brigham Young University Studies 32 (fall 1992):
187-88.
8. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), vol. 1 of The Christian Tradition: A
History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971), 141-42.46 + “Partakers of the Divine Nat
‘The Meaning of Eternal Progress
‘As was noted previously, the doctrines of theo-
sis and exaltation both teach a concept of eternal
progress; where they differ in this regard has to do
with how they specify the meaning of the work
and activity that divinized humans will undertake.
While patristic writers such as St. Irenaeus and
St. Gregory of Nyssa consistently affirm the un-
limited potential of the divinized human person,
they are just as consistent in their vagueness when
it comes to speaking of just what those who ex-
perience divinization actually “do Not so with
the doctrine of exaltation. The activities of exalted
persons are very clear. They will do all those things
that their own Heavenly Parents have done: they
will organize matter into universes and worlds;
they will produce spirit children; they will provide
a plan whereby their spirit children can attain di
vinization also. Just as they were the recipients of
blessings and grace from God, exalted persons
become sources of blessing and grace for other
intelligences’
Salvation vs. Divinization
Another significant difference has to do with
whether or not all persons who are “saved,” or ex
perience salvation, will therefore also experience
divinization. According to the doctrine of theosis
the answer is “yes”—all persons who are saved by
Christ, who enter into heavenly glory are, by def:
inition, divinized. This should not be miscon-
strued to mean that all such divinized persons will
be of an equal status in heaven. On the contrary,
there will be differing degrees of divinization
among the saved. Those more intensely united to
the divinizing energies of God will thereby expe:
@
rience the powers and capacities consequent upon
divinization to a greater degree than others who are
less intensely united to God's divinizing energies.
In contrast, the doctrine of exaltation does not
equate salvation with exaltation or human di-
vinization. As was noted in the previous chapter,
LDS doctrine teaches that heaven consists of three
kingdoms of glory, the highest of which, the ce-
lestial kingdom, is further defined by three dis.
tinct levels. All persons who enter into any level
of heaven, even the lowest, exist in a saved condi.
tion, in a condition of glory which carries with it
certain specified blessings. However, only those
who live worthy of the highest level of the celes-
tial kingdom will have the capacity to eventually
attain exaltation. Therefore, those who are saved
without the capacity for attaining exaltation have
a limited ability to progress and will serve as min-
istering servants for those who do inherit the ca-
pacity to reach exaltation."
Similarities with a Difference
It has become evident that one cannot discuss
soteriology, that is, a theology of salvation, with-
‘out also speaking of doctrines having to do with
the nature of deity—the nature of the God who
makes salvation possible. Likewise, the use of doc-
trines or revelations at all implicitly presupposes
an underlying theology on the nature or develop-
ment of doctrine. Based on the research and study
undertaken to provide the expository and com-
parative work of this thesis, significant similarities,
but similarities with significant differences, have
been uncovered regarding the nature of God and
the issue of the development of doctrine.
9. ‘Those who attain godhood are perfected and do not, therefore, attain “higher states” of godhood. In other
words, there are not differing degrees of exaltation; one either is or is not a god. Exalted persons continue
to progress and increase in glory insofar as they enable their spirit children to attain the same blessings of,
exaltation. See Moses 1:39.
10. Doctrine and Covenants 131:1-4; 132:15-17, 20.46 + “Partakers of the Divine Nat
‘The Meaning of Eternal Progress
‘As was noted previously, the doctrines of theo-
sis and exaltation both teach a concept of eternal
progress; where they differ in this regard has to do
with how they specify the meaning of the work
and activity that divinized humans will undertake.
While patristic writers such as St. Irenaeus and
St. Gregory of Nyssa consistently affirm the un-
limited potential of the divinized human person,
they are just as consistent in their vagueness when
it comes to speaking of just what those who ex-
perience divinization actually “do Not so with
the doctrine of exaltation. The activities of exalted
persons are very clear. They will do all those things
that their own Heavenly Parents have done: they
will organize matter into universes and worlds;
they will produce spirit children; they will provide
a plan whereby their spirit children can attain di
vinization also. Just as they were the recipients of
blessings and grace from God, exalted persons
become sources of blessing and grace for other
intelligences’
Salvation vs. Divinization
Another significant difference has to do with
whether or not all persons who are “saved,” or ex
perience salvation, will therefore also experience
divinization. According to the doctrine of theosis
the answer is “yes”—all persons who are saved by
Christ, who enter into heavenly glory are, by def:
inition, divinized. This should not be miscon-
strued to mean that all such divinized persons will
be of an equal status in heaven. On the contrary,
there will be differing degrees of divinization
among the saved. Those more intensely united to
the divinizing energies of God will thereby expe:
@
rience the powers and capacities consequent upon
divinization to a greater degree than others who are
less intensely united to God's divinizing energies.
In contrast, the doctrine of exaltation does not
equate salvation with exaltation or human di-
vinization. As was noted in the previous chapter,
LDS doctrine teaches that heaven consists of three
kingdoms of glory, the highest of which, the ce-
lestial kingdom, is further defined by three dis.
tinct levels. All persons who enter into any level
of heaven, even the lowest, exist in a saved condi.
tion, in a condition of glory which carries with it
certain specified blessings. However, only those
who live worthy of the highest level of the celes-
tial kingdom will have the capacity to eventually
attain exaltation. Therefore, those who are saved
without the capacity for attaining exaltation have
a limited ability to progress and will serve as min-
istering servants for those who do inherit the ca-
pacity to reach exaltation."
Similarities with a Difference
It has become evident that one cannot discuss
soteriology, that is, a theology of salvation, with-
‘out also speaking of doctrines having to do with
the nature of deity—the nature of the God who
makes salvation possible. Likewise, the use of doc-
trines or revelations at all implicitly presupposes
an underlying theology on the nature or develop-
ment of doctrine. Based on the research and study
undertaken to provide the expository and com-
parative work of this thesis, significant similarities,
but similarities with significant differences, have
been uncovered regarding the nature of God and
the issue of the development of doctrine.
9. ‘Those who attain godhood are perfected and do not, therefore, attain “higher states” of godhood. In other
words, there are not differing degrees of exaltation; one either is or is not a god. Exalted persons continue
to progress and increase in glory insofar as they enable their spirit children to attain the same blessings of,
exaltation. See Moses 1:39.
10. Doctrine and Covenants 131:1-4; 132:15-17, 20.=
Godhead and Trinity
‘The doctrines of theosis and exaltation both
teach that the one God is understood to be three
uncreated, eternal, divine persons—the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost. Within the context of
the doctrine of theosis they are referred to as the
Trinity; within the context of the doctrine of ex-
altation as the Godhead. And when it comes to
describing the attributes of deity, both the mem-
bers of the Trinity and the members of the God-
head appear the same. They are always described
as perfectly one and as being omnipotent, omnis-
cient, omnipresent. They are all-loving and desire
to bring about the divinization, the perfect hap-
piness, of all human persons. Moreover, the roles
or functions of the members of the Trinity are
equivalent to those of the Godhead. The Eternal
Father is the one who establishes the plan of sal-
vation, the creator of all things. The Only Begot-
ten Son, Jests Christ, is the one who serves as the
immediate agent of creation, under the direction
of the Father. He becomes man and makes possible
human salvation through his atoning death and
slorious resurrection. The Holy Ghost is a wit-
ness or testator to the divinity of Christ, the one
who enables human persons to believe in the
plan of salvation established by the Father, the
person who comes as an abiding, guiding pres-
ence through confirmation. However, despite these
profound similarities between the doctrine of the
Trinity and the doctrine of the Godhead, there
are also profound differences as wel
While the members of the Trinity and the
‘members of the Godhead are all believed to be one,
uncreated, and eternal, they are believed to be so in
different senses. The members of the Trinity are
Theosis and Exaltation: In Dialogue + 47
uuncreated and eternal in the sense that they are
outside of time, which is their creation, and have
always been divine—there never was a time when
the members of the Trinity were not fully divine
persons. As they are now, they have always been
and always will be. Further, the oneness of the
members of the Trinity is ontologically based.
While each of the three persons—Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit—is truly a person distinct from the
others, each possesses the fullness of the one divine
nature. To clarify this point, it will be worthwhile to
repeat the words of Viadimir Lossky:
‘There is no partition or division of nature
among the three Persons of the Holy Trinity
‘The Hypostases [Persons] are not three parts
of a whole, of the one nature, but each in-
cludes in Himself the whole divine nature."
The members of the Godhead, on the other
hand, are uncreated and eternal in the sense that
their intelligences are uncreated and eternal. They
exist and have always existed within the context
of the space-time continuum. As they are now,
they will always be, but they have not always been
as they are now. From the perspective of this uni-
verse and the people on this earth, the Father has
certainly always been divine; but strictly speaking,
he was not always a god. At one point he was a
mortal man, and through a process of growth
and progression he “became God."
Jesus Christ began to be the son of the Father
at a particular point in time such that, prior to
that time, his eternal and uncreated intelligence
was not related to the Father. And like his Father,
Christ was not always a god, having attained his,
exalted status during his premortal life. Admit-
tedly, the Holy Ghost is the most mysterious
11, Vladimir Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God, ed. John H. Erickson and Thomas E. Bird (Crestwood,
New York: St. Viadimir’s Seminary Press, 1974), 106; sce chapter 2, page 10.
12. Gospel Principles (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1992), 305. This, of
course, also explains why the Father has a glorified and resurrected body of flesh and bones,48 + “Partakers ofthe Divine Nature"
member of the Godhead, While it is clear from
LDS scriptures that he is a god and that he is a
male person possessing a spirit body, his origin
and destiny have not yet been revealed. Itis prob-
ably safe to assume that in some way, like Jesus
Christ, he became a god without first experiencing
a mortal life.
Furthermore, the union of the three divine
persons who make up the Godhead is moral, not
ontological. In other words, they are one because
they are perfectly “unified in purpose,” perfectly
united in will.” Thus, ontologically speaking, the
three divine persons of the Godhead are distinct
and unrelated because their intelligences, the
essence of their natures, are autonomous and in-
dependent in terms of being. The members of the
Godhead become “one” through a common, vol-
untary agreement, not through ontological neces-
sity. Ultimately, then, the doctrines of the Trinity
and the Godhead can be categorized as function
ally equivalent yet ontologically distinct descrip-
tions of deity.
‘The Development of Doctrine
‘The doctrines of theosis and exaltation are
both alike in their genesis. In other words, the
present content of the doctrines, their present
formulations, were not present as such, in either
case, from the beginning. The first clear mention
of what is now known as the doctrine of theosis
can be found in the writings of St. Irenaeus, Bishop
of Lyons (c. 130-c. 202). This doctrine of salva-
tion in which humans can become gods contin-
ued to be reflected upon and its implications
were more and more worked out over the course
13. Gospel Principles, 37.
14, Robert M. Grant, trans, Irenaeus of Lyons (New York: Routledge, 1997), 164
15. Doctrine and Covenants 98:12.
16. M. Gerald Bradford and Larry B. Dahl, “Doctrine: Meaning, Source, and History of Doctrine. in Jesus
Christ and His Gospel: Selections from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (Salt Lake
City: Deseret Book, 1994), 126,
of centuries. The doctrine of theosis did not really
attain its present form until the fourteenth cen.
tury when, in the heat of doctrinal controversy,
St. Gregory Palamas (1296-1359) achieved what
is now known as the “Palamite synthesis.” Simi-
larly, the content of the doctrine of exaltation
was revealed “line upon line, precept upon pre-
cept” to the Prophet Joseph Smith." While he re-
ceived his first revelation, the “first vision,” in
1820 and established the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints in 1830, it would not be un:
til 1844, the year of the Prophet Joseph's un-
timely death, that the doctrinal structure of the
LDS Church and the doctrine of exaltation would
be in place." However, while it certainly took
time for both the doctrines of theosis and exalta-
tion to attain their present forms, nevertheless,
there still remain important differences as to how
doctrine and revelation develop.
At the risk of being overly simplistic, the pa-
tristic authors who explained and developed the
doctrine of theosis did not think that thereby they
were adding to the revelations of the Church. The
Person, work, and words of Jesus Christ were be-
lieved to be the definitive revelation of God the
Father to the world precisely because, since Christ
was and is the unique Son and Word of God, the
Logos, the Father could not possibly reveal or utter
anything more that was not already contained in
the revelation of Jesus Christ. The Apostles, as eye-
witnesses of the person, work, and words of Jesus
Christ, were the privileged transmitters of this fi-
nal and full revelation of the Father to the world.
Bishops, whose ordination could be traced to
one of the Twelve Apostles, possessed the fullnessof apostolic authority and power, and were the
divinely appointed arbiters of what was truly part
of the apostolic faith and what was not. This
supreme power of elucidating and defining the
faith handed on to them by the Apostles was fully
exercised when bishops gathered together in a
worldwide or ecumenical council, whose decisions
were not considered authoritative and binding
unless ratified by the common consent of the
church. The church’s acceptance of conciliar def
initions and creeds was understood to be a defin-
itive sign that the decisions of the church council
in question had in fact been inspired of and pro-
tected by the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, within this context, the develop:
ment of doctrine by church leaders and teachers
means the elaboration or explication or the mak-
ing explicit of what has always been present, at
least implicitly, in that full and perfect revelation
of the Father which is the person, work, and
words of Jesus Christ. And such development of
doctrine was and is always subject to the teaching
authority of the successors of the Apostles, the
bishops. Hence, while itis possible to say that, be-
cause of a historical development of doctrine, as
is the case with the doctrine of thesis, there is a
“newness” to how the revelation of God is un-
derstood and articulated, this should not be mis.
construed to mean that the doctrines which have
developed over time are “new revelations” in the
sense that they are supplements or additions to
the revelation contained in the person, words,
and work of Jesus Christ, which revelation has
been handed on by the Apostles and their succes-
sors in the apostolic ministry of preserving and
handing on the faith.
‘Theosis and Exaltation: In Dialogue + 49
By way of contrast, the development of doc-
trine which took place during the life of the
Prophet Joseph Smith in general, and in particu-
lar with regards to the doctrine of exaltation, is
understood to involve not just new articulations
of a previous revelation, but completely new and
supplemental revelations as well. The person and
words and work accomplished by Jesus Christ in
“the meridian of time” are all believed to be the
high point of the Father's plan of salvation; nev.
ertheless, the revelatory activity of Christ during
his ministry on earth is not regarded as definitive
‘or unsusceptible to further additions.” In fact,
the revelations given through the Prophet Joseph
Smith in the current “dispensation of the fulness
of times” include restorations of revelations given
in previous eras of human history as well as
knowledge never before revealed in any era of
human history."
For it is necessary in the ushering in of the
dispensation of the fulness of times, which
dispensation is now beginning to usher in,
thata whole and complete and perfect union,
and welding together of dispensations, and
keys, and powers, and glories should take
place, and be revealed from the days of Adam
even to the present time. And not only this,
but those things which never have been re-
vealed from the foundation of the world, but
have been kept hid from the wise and prudent,
shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in
this, the dispensation of the fulness of times.”
In other words, in LDS teaching, salvation history
is understood to be a series of dispensations ot
eras of history in which God reveals himself
through the ministry of prophets whom he
17. Courtney J. Lassiter, “Dispensations of the Gospel,’ in Jesus Christ and His Gospel: Selections from the En:
‘yclopedia of Mormonism, 116-19 passim.
18. Rand H, Packer, “Dispensation of the Fulness of Times,’ in Jesus Christ and His Gospel: Selections from the
Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 114~16 passim.
19, Doctrine and Covenants 128:18.50 + “Partakers of the Divine Nature”
chooses and calls, and no one dispensation is es-
sentially greater than another since the same basic
gospel message and ordinances are proclaimed
and administered.
Several fundamentals are common to all dis
pensations: priesthood authority, baptism by
immersion and the laying on of hands for the
sift of the Holy Ghost, the sealing power
(D&C 128:9-11), and temple worship, Basic
gospel doctrines, including the fall of Adam,
faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, and the need
for an infinite atonement, were taught in each
«ra from Adam's day onward whenever there
were living prophets selected by the Lord
(Moses 5:4-12; D&C 112:29-32)°
Eventually, the church that is established at the
beginning of each dispensation apostatizes after
2 period of time and a restoration eventually
comes about through the calling of a new
prophet and the establishment of a new dispen-
sation." Thus, the development of the doctrine
of exaltation which took place over the course of
the 1830s and 1840s resulted from ongoing reve
lations which continued to provide new knowl-
edge, as opposed to deriving new knowledge and
insight from an ongoing explication of a revela-
tion definitively given, as is the case with the doc-
trine of theosis
20, Lassiter, “Dispensations of the Gospel,” 117.
Summary
How, then, to characterize or summarize the
similarities and the differences between the doc.
trines of theosis and exaltation? In this attempt to
comparatively analyze two different ways of de-
scribing how humans can become “gods by grace,”
the conclusion offered at the end of the subsection
comparing the Trinity and the Godhead would ap-
ear to be tremendously significant. There the doc-
trines of the Trinity and the Godhead were de-
scribed as functionally equivalent yet ontologically
distinct. Given the similarities and differences de-
tailed in this chapter, it can be said that, like the
doctrines of deity which they presuppose, the doc:
trines of theosis and exaltation are functionally
equivalent while being ontologically distinct. In
other words, in both cases the results of human di-
vinization are equivalent—humans come to pos-
sess divine qualities and attributes, a new manner
oflife, which they did not possess before and which
they could not attain of their own volition. Yet the
ways in which human divinization take place—in
the case of theosis, through participation, and in the
case of exaltation, through growth—are grounded
in profoundly different ontological visions of hu-
‘man and divine nature,
21; What distinguishes the previous dispensation, the “dispensation of the meridian of time” inaugurated by
Christ is that Christ's atoning sacrifice was accomplished during it. What distinguishes the current "die
Pensation of the fulness of times, inaugurated by the Prophet Joseph Smith—in addition to possessing
that fallness of revelation previously mentioned—is the fact that it will not end through apostasy but
through the second coming of Jesus Christ