2019-09-29T21:11:43Z

ReedComire:

__NOTOC__
<onlyinclude>
==What evidence does the Book of Abraham show to support its own antiquity?==
===The stories and worldviews we find in the translated text of our Book of Abraham coincide nicely with what we find from ancient Abrahamic lore===

The stories and worldviews we find in the translated text of our Book of Abraham coincide nicely with what we find from ancient Abrahamic lore. Joseph Smith demonstrated extensive knowledge of these areas, which he then integrated into a theologically rich whole. He could only have received this information through revelation, since there were no resources available to him on this subject at the time.

===Evidence from non-Biblical sources===
<blockquote>
The book of Abraham is consistent with various details found in nonbiblical stories about Abraham that circulated in the ancient world around the time the papyri were likely created. In the book of Abraham, God teaches Abraham about the sun, the moon, and the stars. “I show these things unto thee before ye go into Egypt,” the Lord says, “that ye may declare all these words.” Ancient texts repeatedly refer to Abraham instructing the Egyptians in knowledge of the heavens. For example, Eupolemus, who lived under Egyptian rule in the second century B.C.E., wrote that Abraham taught astronomy and other sciences to the Egyptian priests. A third-century papyrus from an Egyptian temple library connects Abraham with an illustration similar to facsimile 1 in the book of Abraham.44 A later Egyptian text, discovered in the 20th century, tells how the Pharaoh tried to sacrifice Abraham, only to be foiled when Abraham was delivered by an angel. Later, according to this text, Abraham taught members of the Pharaoh’s court through astronomy.45 All these details are found in the book of Abraham.
<br><br>
Other details in the book of Abraham are found in ancient traditions located across the Near East. These include Terah, Abraham’s father, being an idolator; a famine striking Abraham’s homeland; Abraham’s familiarity with Egyptian idols; and Abraham’s being 62 years old when he left Haran, not 75 as the biblical account states. Some of these extrabiblical elements were available in apocryphal books or biblical commentaries in Joseph Smith’s lifetime, but others were confined to nonbiblical traditions inaccessible or unknown to 19th-century Americans.<ref>https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham</ref></blockquote>

===Ancient Human Sacrifice===
<blockquote>The existence of human sacrifice in ancient Egypt has been variously debated and denied. While Egyptologists generally admit that the practice existed in the formative periods of Egyptian society, opinions among Egyptologists for later time periods range from claiming that "there is no certain evidence for the practice of human sacrifice . . . from the Old Kingdom onwards" to asserting that there is "indisputable evidence for the practice of human sacrifice in classical ancient Egypt." However difficult it may be for modern societies to accept that a practice we detest, such as human sacrifice, occurred in past civilizations we admire, further research and discoveries necessitate a reassessment of the possibility of this practice within Egyptian culture. While there is not a universally accepted definition of human sacrifice, for the purposes of this paper we will define human sacrifice as the slaying of a person in a ritual context.<ref>link=https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1422&index=6</ref></blockquote>

===Parallels with Abrahamic and Egyptian traditions===
There is evidence from antiquity—both in the Abrahamic tradition and in the Jewish recontextualization of Egyptian vignettes and dramas—which lend support to the claim that Joseph translated (albeit by unconventional means) the Book of Abraham from an authentic ancient source.

While Book of Abraham "translations" and "restorations" of the damaged vignettes do not seem to square with the translations of non-LDS Egyptologists, there are several instances when Joseph did get some of the details correct. This is no small thing considering that neither Joseph, nor any one to whom he had access, could translate Egyptian.

====The Sons of Horus====
Facsimile 2 (shown between Chapters 3 and 4 of the Book of Abraham in the LDS Pearl of Great Price), is known as a hypocephalus ("under the head") and was a small disk-shaped object that was placed under the head of the deceased. The Egyptians "believed it would magically cause the head and body to be enveloped in flames or radiance, thus making the deceased divine."<ref name="rhodes">{{Paper:Rhodes:Hypocephalus Twenty Years Later}}</ref> In this drawing (or vignette), stand four mummy-like figures known—to Egyptologists—as the Sons of Horus. Their images were also on the canopic jars (the jars that stored the internal organs of the deceased) that we see under the lion couch in Joseph Smith's Facsimile 1. Joseph revealed that these four figures represented "this earth in its four quarters." According to modern Egyptologists, Joseph Smith is correct. The Sons of Horus "were the gods of the four quarters of the earth and later came to be regarded as presiding over the four cardinal points."<ref>{{Paper:Rhodes:Hypocephalus Twenty Years Later}} See also {{Ensign1|author=Daniel C. Peterson|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/01/news-from-antiquity?lang=eng News from Antiquity]|date=January 1994|pages=16-}} where a picture (detail of facsimile #1) and text (see paragraph 5, first sentence) both identify the four canopic jars / sons of Horus as "idols." </ref>

====Abrahamic traditions====
Years ago, Dr. Nibley pointed out that the critics neglect the ancient Near Eastern Abrahamic traditions that support the story found in the Book of Abraham.<ref>{{IE1|author=Hugh W. Nibley|article=The Unknown Abraham|date=January 1969|start=26}}</ref> Ancient Abrahamic lore and Jewish traditions preserved in ancient texts, show some surprising parallels to what we find in the text of the Book of Abraham. Some of these parallels imply that Joseph (who likely could not have had access to many of these traditions) actually restored authentic ancient Abrahamic traditions. Some of these parallels include early Jewish traditions about Abraham's life—details not found in the Bible.<ref>See {{TraditionsAbraham0}}</ref> Two such ancient documents that show some surprising parallels to our Book of Abraham are the ''Apocalypse of Abraham''<ref>For some of the parallels see {{Nibley14|start=8|end=40}}</ref><ref name="geo">{{APC|author=John Gee, William J. Hamblin, and Daniel C. Peterson|article=[http://farms.byu.edu/publications/bookschapter.php?bookid=40&chapid=161 'And I Saw the Stars': The Book of Abraham and Ancient Geocentric Astronomy]|start=1|end=16}}</ref> and the Testament of Abraham<ref>See Jeff Lindsay, "[http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml Could there have been a real Egyptian scroll that actually, literally discussed Abraham?]" (accessed 23 September 2005); {{FR-4-1-16}}; {{sunstone|author=Hugh Nibley|article=[http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=69 The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham]|num=4|date=December 1979|start=49|end=51}}; {{Nibley14_1}}</ref> (the Apocalypse of Abraham dates to about the same time as the Book of Abraham papyri).

===Astronomy===
Other interesting parallels include ancient names and astronomy. Ancient Egyptian names, for example, that would have been unknown to Joseph Smith, are accurately represented in the Book of Abraham both phonetically as well as in meaning.<ref>See John A. Tvedtnes, "[http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2005-John-Tvedtnes.pdf Authentic Ancient Names and Words in the Book of Abraham and Related Kirtland Egyptian Papers]," presentation at the 2005 FAIR Conference</ref> With regard to astronomy, we find that in Joseph Smith's day "heliocentricity" (as proposed by Copernicus and Newton) was the accepted astronomical view. Nineteenth-century people (including the most brilliant minds of the day) believed that everything revolved around the Sun—therefore the term "heliocentric" (Greek ''helios''=sun + centered). (In the twentieth-first century we generally accept an Einsteinian view of the cosmos.) The Book of Abraham, however, clearly delineates a ''geocentric'' view of the universe—or a belief that the Earth (Greek ''geo'') stood at the center of the universe, and all things moved around our planet.

According to ancient geocentric cosmologies and what we read in the Book of Abraham, the heavens (which is defined as the expanse above the earth—no celestial object is mentioned to exist below the earth) was composed of multiple layers or tiers—each tier higher than the previous. Therefore the Sun is in a higher tier than the moon, and the stars are in higher tiers still (compare [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/5,9,17#5 Abraham 3:5, 9, 17]).<ref name="geo"></ref>{{Rp|5}} According to geocentric astronomy, celestial objects have longer time spans (or lengths of "reckoning") based upon their relative distance from the earth. "Thus, the length of reckoning of a planet is based on its revolution [time to orbit around the center, in this case the earth](and not rotation [time to spin on its axis, as the earth does every 24 hours])."<ref name="geo"></ref>{{Rp|8}} The higher the celestial object, the greater its length of reckoning (compare [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/5#5 Abraham 3:5]). Likewise, in [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/8-9#8 Abraham 3:8–9], we read that "there shall be another planet whose reckoning of time shall be longer still; And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob."

Ancient geocentric astronomers believed that the stars were "the outer-most celestial sphere, furthest from the earth and nearest to God."<ref name="geo"></ref>{{Rp|9}} We find in the Book of Abraham that the star Kolob was the star nearest "the throne of God" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/9#9 Abraham 3:9]). In the ancient, yet recently discovered, Apocalypse of Abraham (which dates from about the same time period as the JSP), we find that God's throne is said to reside in the eighth firmament (the firmaments, being another term for the varying tiers in the heavens above the Earth).<ref name="geo"></ref>{{Rp|9}}

The Book of Abraham also reveals that those celestial objects that are highest above the earth, "govern" the objects below them (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/3,9#3 Abraham 3:3, 9] and [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_2 Facsimile 2, fig. 5]). This sounds similar to the beliefs of those who accepted an ancient geocentric cosmology:

<blockquote>
Throughout the ancient world the governing role of celestial bodies was conceived in similar terms. God sits on his throne in the highest heaven giving commands, which are passed down by angels through the various regions of heaven, with each region governing or commanding the regions beneath it.<ref name="geo"></ref>{{Rp|10}}
</blockquote>

We find this governing order described in the Apocalypse of Abraham and other ancient sources. All of this makes sense only from an ancient geocentric perspective (such as that believed in Abraham's day) and makes no sense from a heliocentric perspective (which is what Joseph would have known in his day).

A different interesting parallel comes from [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_1 Facsimile 1] (Abraham on the lion couch). According to Egyptologists, this is a typical Egyptian embalming scene and has nothing to do with Abraham or sacrifice. In fact, the critics assure us, Abraham is not a topic of discussion in Egyptian papyri, and there is no connection with Abraham and the embalming lion couch.

Recent discoveries, however, suggests that the Biblical Abraham does appear in some Egyptian papyri that date to the same period as the JSP. In one instance (thus far discovered) Abraham's name appears to have a connection to an Egyptian lion couch scene.<ref>{{GuideJSP|start=12|end=13}}</ref>

===Use of the names of Mahujah and Mahijah===

The Book of Abraham and the Masoretic text of the Bible (unknown to Joseph Smith) both use the names Mahujah and Mahijah as it relates to Enoch. A version of one of these names is in the King James Bible, but not both. For more details, click here: [[:Category:Book_of_Abraham/Mahujah]]

===Plain of Olishem===
The Book of Abraham mentions "the plain of Olishem" (Abraham 1:10). No such place name occurs in the Bible, but it does occur, appropriately timed and located, in an inscription of the Akkadian ruler Naram Sin, dating to about 2250 BC.<ref>{{FR-18-1-18}}; citing See John M. Lundquist, "Was Abraham at Ebla? A Cultural Background of the Book of Abraham (Abraham 1 and 2)," in ''Studies in Scripture, Volume 2: The Pearl of Great Price'', ed. Robert L. Millet and Kent P. Jackson (Salt Lake City: Randall Book, 1985), 233–35; Paul Y. Hoskisson, "Where Was Ur of the Chaldees?" in ''The Pearl of Great Price: Revelations from God'', ed. H. Donl Peterson and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1989), 136 n. 44; {{FR-4-1-15}} (see 115 n. 64).</ref>

===The god "Elkenah"===

<blockquote>
The Caananite [god] El....compares favorably with the information set forth in the Book of Abraham text regarding Elkenah. In particular, the type of sacrifice described in Abraham 1 fits a cultic setting in Syro-Palestinian or Canaanite territory much more readily than it fits a Mesopotamian or Assyro-Babylonian scenario. More to the point, the scene on Facsimile 1, with its representation of a human sacrifice on an Egyptian lion couch, fits extremely well with Egyptian Middle Kingdom evidence for the cultic ritual of human sacrifice....

[The source of the name ''Canaan''] takes the derived form Kinaʿu as signifying the "Occident," the "Land of Sunset," or "Westland." This is the West Semitic equivalent of Akkadian Amurru "West." In Amarna-era texts and in the Bible, the terms Canaan and Amurru are largely synonymous. It is interesting in this connection that the sons of Horus stood for the four cardinal directions and that Qebehsenuf, which represents "the idolatrous god of Elkenah" on Facsimile 1, was indeed the god of the West. <ref>{{JBMRS-19-1-5}} </ref>
</blockquote>

<embedvideo service="youtube">30mUseO1_7s</embedvideo>

[[Category:Book_of_Abraham]]
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}

Category:Book of Abraham/Mahujah

2019-09-29T20:59:19Z

ReedComire:

==The Book of Abraham uses the names of Mahujah and Mahijah==

The King James Bible uses the name of a person and/or place in Enoch's time called Mehujael.

<blockquote>And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech. {{s||Genesis|4|18}}</blockquote>

This is essentially the same name as Mahujah in the Book of Abraham because Hebrew does not use vowels. Also, Mehuja-el ends in el. Mahu-jah ends in jah, but both of these suffixes are common ways of associating a name with God in Hebrew.<ref>https://thirdhour.org/blog/faith/scripture/joseph-moses-enoch-mahujah/</ref> And in both the Bible and the Book of Abraham, the name is in connection with Enoch.

<blockquote>And there came a man unto him, whose name was Mahijah, and said unto him: Tell us plainly who thou art, and from whence thou comest? {{s||Moses|6|40}} </blockquote>

It also contains a variation on the name, Mahujah:

<blockquote>And from that time forth Enoch began to prophesy, saying unto the people, that: As I was journeying, and stood upon the place Mahujah, and cried unto the Lord, there came a voice out of heaven, saying—Turn ye, and get ye upon the mount Simeon. {{s||Moses|7|2}}</blockquote>

The amazing part is, <b>the Masoretic text of the Bible contains both Mahujah and Mahijah</b>. The Masoretic text of the Bible did not come about until much later, Joseph Smith could not have known.

For more details [https://thirdhour.org/blog/faith/scripture/joseph-moses-enoch-mahujah click here]

{{Endnotes source}}

Category:Book of Abraham/Mahujah

2019-09-29T20:35:45Z

ReedComire: Created page with "==The Book of Abraham uses the names of Mahujah and Mahijah== The King James Bible uses the name of a person and/or place in Enoch's time called Mehujael. <blockquote>And un..."

2018-05-24T06:06:03Z

ReedComire:

{{FME
|title=Other Witnesses of the Restoration
|category=Witnesses of the Restoration
}}

Besides the 3 and 8 witnesses of the Book of Mormon, there are other witnesses to the truthfulness of the church.

==Joseph's Family Believed Him==
<blockquote>
The suffering that Joseph Smith endured (e.g., mob attacks, tarring and feathering, five months of miserable incarceration in Liberty Jail) and his apparently conscious decision to die as a martyr argue powerfully for the sincerity of his prophetic claims.

But what can we learn from the behavior of his parents, siblings and wife? They knew him best. Did they have confidence in him? They left behind many statements declaring that they did. But actions speak louder than words. Talk is cheap. Did their lives manifest the trust in him that their words profess?

According to Joseph Smith’s 1838 personal history, Joseph Sr. reacted with immediate trust to his son’s account of the Angel Moroni, saying that it was “of God” and advising Joseph “to do as commanded by the messenger” (JS-H 1:50).

With the exception of two siblings who died in infancy, this seems to have been the response of the entire Smith family. Joseph’s oldest brother, Alvin, died young in late November 1823, long before the founding of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and less than two months after the first visit of Moroni. According to his mother, though, his last words included an earnest admonition to Joseph to be faithful in obtaining the plates of the Book of Mormon.

Joseph Smith Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith, the parents of the Prophet, followed him faithfully, from New York to Ohio, on to Missouri, and...on to Illinois. So did their remaining (7) children.

Joseph Sr., Hyrum and Samuel stood among the Eight Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, testifying that they had both “seen and hefted,” indeed “handled” with their hands, the plates from which the book was translated. Joseph Sr., Hyrum and William served successively as patriarchs to the church; William was a member of the Twelve; Joseph Sr. and Hyrum were “assistant presidents” to their son and brother.

Don Carlos presided over the high priests at Kirtland and Nauvoo and edited the church newspaper, “Times and Seasons.” Samuel was one of the first Mormon missionaries and, eventually, a member of the first church high council....

Mother Smith devoted several of her last years to compiling “Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith, the Prophet”

Perhaps most significant of all the close family, though, is Hyrum, who, though acutely aware of the likely outcome and despite being urged to flee, chose to accompany Joseph to Carthage Jail, where both died in a hail of bullets...

“We all had the most implicit confidence in what (Joseph) said,” recalled his brother William late in his life. “He was a truthful boy. Father and mother believed him, why should not the children? I suppose if he had told crooked stories about other things we might have doubted his word about the plates, but Joseph was a truthful boy. That father and mother believed his report and suffered persecution for that belief shows that he was truthful. No, we never doubted his word for one minute.”<ref>"Defending the Faith: The collective witness of Joseph Smith's family" by Daniel Petersen, https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865592250/The-collective-witness-of-Joseph-Smiths-family.html?pg=all</ref>
</blockquote>

==Visions of Angels==
Joseph Fielding McConkie points out that:
<blockquote>
"Many a pretender to the prophetic office has claimed to entertain angels or to have spoken with God, but who other than Joseph Smith introduced his angels to others? Joseph Smith introduced Moroni to Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris. He was never alone when priesthood or keys were restored.... He and Sydney Rigdon received the revelation on the degrees of glory together. Together they saw legions of angels, along with the Father and the Son (see D&C 76:21-23). Oliver Cowdery was with Joseph Smith when John the Baptist came to restore the Aaronic Priesthood, and when Peter, James, and John came to restore the Melchizedek Priesthood. Oliver was also with Joseph Smith when Christ came to accept the dedication of the Kirtland Temple, and Moses, Elias, and Elijah restored their keys, powers, and authorities."<ref>"Sons and Daughters of God", pp. 194-195</ref>
</blockquote>

{{endnotes sources}}
[[Category:Witnesses of the Restoration]]

2017-11-20T07:08:57Z

ReedComire:

{{FME
|title=Prayer circles
|category=History/Apostasy/Doctrinal change/Temple
}}
{{:Source:Reexploring the Book of Mormon:Ch:10:1:Apostasy from covenants}}
{{endnotes sources}}
[[Category:Temples]]
[[Category:Early Church]]

Early Christian Deification Belief

2017-11-20T07:04:39Z

ReedComire:

<onlyinclude>__NOTOC__
==Early Church Belief in Deification==

The LDS church believes that all mankind are literal sons and daughters of God the Father, and that we can progress and learn and eventually become like God. This idea is called "deification". Understand that official doctrine does not specify if this means we can become a god with a big "G" (like our Father in Heaven), or a little "g" (like Thor). However, the basic concept is doctrinal. The idea was blasphemous to Catholics and Protestants of Joseph Smith's day. But did Early Christians believe this?

===What scriptures support deification?===

<blockquote>I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. {{s||Psalms|82|6}}</blockquote>
<blockquote>...we are the offspring of God {{s||Acts|17|28|29}}</blockquote>
<blockquote>Beloved, now are we the sons of God...when he shall appear, we shall be like him...1 John 3:2</blockquote>
<blockquote>...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...{{s||Romans|8|16-17}}</blockquote>

===Early Christian Belief in Deification===

===Irenaeus (ca. AD 115-202) ===

Saint Irenaeus, who may justly be called the first Biblical theologian among the ancient Christians, was a disciple of the great Polycarp, who was a direct disciple of John the Revelator. <ref>{{ECF|start=16|end=17}}</ref> Irenaeus is not a heretic or unorthodox in traditional Christian circles, yet he shares a belief in ''theosis'':

<blockquote>
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. <ref>{{ECF1|start=94}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Like the LDS, Irenaeus did not believe that this belief in any way displaced God, Christ, or the Holy Ghost:

<blockquote>
there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption....Since, therefore, this is sure and stedfast, that no other God or Lord was announced by the Spirit, except Him who, as God, rules over all, together with His Word, and those who receive the Spirit of adoption. <ref>{{Anf|author=Irenaeus|article=Against Heresies|citation=|vol=1|page=463}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Yet, Irenaeus—whom it would be perverse to exclude from the ranks of orthodox Christians—believed in ''theosis'' in terms which agree with LDS thinking on the matter:

<blockquote>
We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods. <ref>{{ECF1|start=94}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Also:

<blockquote>
How then will any be a god, if he has not first been made a man? How can any be perfect when he has only lately been made 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. <ref>{{ECF|start=95|end=96}}</ref>
</blockquote>

And:

<blockquote>
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.” <ref>{{ECF1|start=106}}; Citing Irenaeus, ''Against Heresies'', 4.38 cp. 4.11.</ref>
</blockquote>

And:

<blockquote>
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."” <ref>{{Anf1|author=Irenaeus|article=Against Heresies| citation=|vol=1|start=419, chapter 6}}</ref>
</blockquote>

And, Irenaeus considers the doctrine clearly Biblical, just as the LDS do:

<blockquote>
For he who holds, without pride and boasting, the true glory (opinion) regarding created things and the Creator, who is the Almighty God of all, and who has granted existence to all; [such an one, ] continuing in His love and subjection, and giving of thanks, shall also receive from Him the greater glory of promotion, looking forward to the time when he shall become like Him who died for him, for He, too, "was made in the likeness of sinful flesh," to condemn sin, and to cast it, as now a condemned thing, away beyond the flesh, but that He might call man forth into His own likeness, assigning him as [His own] imitator to God, and imposing on him His Father's law, in order that he may see God, and granting him power to receive the Father; [being] the Word of God who dwelt in man, and became the Son of man, that He might accustom man to receive God, and God to dwell in man, according to the good pleasure of the Father. <ref>{{Anf1|author=Irenaeus|article=Against Heresies| citation=|vol=1|start=450, chapter 6}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Said one Protestant theologian of Irenaeus:

<blockquote>
Participation in God was carried so far by Irenaeus as to amount to deification. 'We were not made gods in the beginning,' he says, 'but at first men, then at length gods.' This is not to be understood as mere rhetorical exaggeration on Irenaeus' part. He meant the statement to be taken literally. <ref>Arthur C. McGiffert, ''A History of Christian Thought, Vol. 1—Early and Eastern: From Jesus to John of Damascus'' (New York: Scribner's Sons, 1932), 141.</ref>
</blockquote>

===Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215)===

Clement, an early Christian leader in Alexandria, also taught the doctrine of deification:

<blockquote>
yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god. <ref>Clement of Alexandria, ''Exhortation to the Greeks'', 1. {{link|url=http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-exhortation.html}}</ref>
</blockquote>

And:

<blockquote>
...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 god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus was right when he said, "Men are gods, and gods are men." <ref>Clement of Alexandria, ''The Instructor'', 3.1 see also Clement, ''Stromateis'', 23.{{NeedCite}}</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Those who have 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 the other "gods" who are ranked next below the savior. <ref>{{ECF|start=243|end=244}}; ''Stromata'' 7:10 (55–56).</ref>
</blockquote>

===Origen (ca. AD 185-251)===

<blockquote>
And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. <ref>Origen, ''Commentary on John,'' Book II, Chapter 2.</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
The Father, then, is proclaimed as the one true God; but besides the true God are many who become gods by participating in God. </ref>Origen in Bettensen, Henry. ''The Early Christian Fathers'', 324.</ref>
</blockquote>

Origen also defined what it means to "participate" in something:

<blockquote>
Every one who participates in anything, is unquestionably of one essence and nature with him who is partaker of the same thing. <ref>Origin, ''De Principiis'', 4:1:36 in Ante-Nicene Fathers 4:381.</ref>
</blockquote>

===Justin Martyr (d. ca. AD 163)===

Justin the Martyr said in 150 A.D. that he wishes

<blockquote>
to prove to you that the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons... 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... <ref>Justin Martyr, ''Dialogue with Trypho'', 124.</ref>
</blockquote>

Also,

<blockquote>
[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. <ref>Justin Martyr, ''Dialogue with Trypho'', 124.</ref>
</blockquote>

===Hippolytus (AD 170-236)===

<blockquote>
Now in all these acts He offered up, as the first-fruits, His own manhood, in order that thou, when thou art in tribulation, mayest not be disheartened, but, confessing thyself to be a man (of like nature with the Redeemer,) mayest dwell in expectation of also receiving what the Father has granted unto this Son...The Deity (by condescension) does not diminish anything of the dignity of His divine perfection having made you even God unto his glory. <ref>Hippolytus, ''Refutation of All Heresies'' 10:29-30, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 5:152.</ref>
</blockquote>

===Athanasius===

In 347, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria and participant in the council of Nicea, said:

<blockquote>
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. <ref>Athanasius, ''Against the Arians'', 1.39, 3.39.</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
For as Christ died and was exalted as man, so, as man, is He said to take what, as God, He ever had, that even such a grant of grace might reach to us. For the Word was not impaired in receiving a body, that He should seek to receive a grace, but rather He deified that which He put on, and more than that, gave it graciously to the race of man. <ref>Athanasius, ''Against the Arians'', 1:42, in ''Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers'', Second Series, 4:330-331.</ref>
</blockquote>

He also states that Christ "became man that we might be made divine." <ref>Athanasius, ''On the Incarnation'', 54.</ref>

===Augustine (AD 354-430)===

Augustine, considered one of the greatest Christian Fathers, said

<blockquote>
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, ({{b||John|1|12}}). If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods. <ref>Augustine, ''On the Psalms'', 50:2.</ref>
</blockquote>

===Jerome (AD 340-420)===

Jerome also described the deification of believers as an act of grace, which matches the LDS understanding precisely:

<blockquote>
“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 to becoming sons of God” I made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. We are called gods and sons!...[Christ 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. <ref>Jerome, ''The Homilies of Saint Jerome'', 106–107.</ref>
</blockquote>

Jerome goes on to say that we should

<blockquote>
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 an are become perfect, are gods and the sons of the most high... <ref>Jerome, ''The Homilies of Saint Jerome'', 106–353.</ref>
</blockquote>

===Modern Christian exegesis===

The ''Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology'' describes "deification" thusly:

<blockquote>
Deification (Greek ''Theosis'') is for orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, ''according to the Bible'', is ‘made in the image and likeness of God’...it is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become God by grace. This doctrine is based on many passages of both O.T. and N.T. ({{b||Psalms|82|}} (81) .6; {{b|2|Peter|1|4}}), and it is essentially the teaching both of St. Paul, though he tends to use the language of filial adoption ({{b||Romans|8|9-17}}, {{b||Galatians|4|5-7}}) and the fourth gospel ({{b||John|17|21-23}}). <ref>Alan Richardson (editor), ''The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology'' (Westminster: John Knox Press, 1983). ISBN 0664213987. (emphasis added).</ref>
</blockquote>

Joseph Fitzmyer wrote:

<blockquote>
The language of 2 Peter is taken up by St. Irenaeus, in his famous phrase, ‘if the Word has been made man, it is so that men may be made gods; (adv. Haer v, pref.), And becomes the standard in Greek theology. In the fourth century St. Athanasius repeats Irenaeus almost word for word, and in the fifth century St. Cyril of Alexandria says that we shall become sons ‘by participation’ (Greek ''methexis''). Deification is the central idea in the spirituality of St. Maximus the confessor, for whom the doctrine is corollary of the incarnation: ‘deification, briefly, is the encompassing and fulfillment of all times and ages’,...and St. Symeon the new theologian at the end of the tenth century writes, ‘he who is God by nature converses with those whom he has made gods by grace, as a friend converses with his friends, face to face...’

Finally, it should be noted that deification does not mean absorption into God, since the deified creature remains itself and distinct. It is the whole human being, body and soul, who is transfigured in the spirit into the likeness of the divine nature, and deification is the goal of every Christian. <ref>Joseph A. Fitzmyer, ''Pauline Theology: a brief sketch'' (Prentice-Hall, 1967), 42. AISN B0006BQTCQ.</ref>
</blockquote>

According to Christian scholar G.L. Prestige, the ancient Christians “taught that the
destiny of man was to become like God, and even to become deified.” <ref>G.L. Prestige, ''God in Patristic Thought'' (London Press, 1956), 73.</ref>

William R. Inge, Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote:

<blockquote>
"God became man, that we might become God" was a commonplace of doctrinal theology at least until the time of Augustine, and that "deification holds a very large place in the writings of the fathers...We find it in Irenaeus as well as in Clement, in Athanasius as well in Gregory of Nysee. St. Augustine was no more afraid of ''deificari'' in Latin than Origen of ''apotheosis'' in Greek...To modern ears the word ''deification'' sounds not only strange but arrogant and shocking. <ref>William Ralph Inge, ''Christian Mysticism'' (London, Metheun & Co., 1948[1899]), 13, 356.</ref>
</blockquote>

===Eastern Orthodoxy===

The Eastern Orthodox Church broke off and became their own sect over the doctrine of deification or "theosis", and believe the same today.

===Summary===

Yes, these "arrogant and shocking" doctrines were clearly held by early Christians!

This view of the early Christians' doctrines is not unique to the Latter-day Saints. Many modern Christian writers have recognized the same doctrines. If some modern Christians do not wish to embrace these ancient doctrines, that is their privilege, but they cannot logically claim that such doctrines are not "Christian." One might fairly ask why modern Christians do not believe that which the ancient Christians insisted upon?

</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}
[[Category:Early Church]]