Deification

[johnny]

Matthew J. Tandy,

However, no where in the scriptures is there found the doctrine that being a creation of God makes it impossible to be a creator subject to God, whose creations and their creations give him eternal glory. While we might not become God uncreated, we may become subject to God, creators. In other words, endowed with god-like powers but never being able to be equal to God.

Scripture reveals God did not need a wife to create the first man.

Do you believe that a man and a woman are needed for pro-creation?

Is God ALL powerful, beyond time, able to create anything as he sees fit, or is he only VERY VERY VERY CLOSE to being all powerful?

Like I said earlier God is Almighty, this is what scripture reveals.

The answer, while true in the fact we do not know the mind of the Creator, does not adress the initial premise. If God, being from beginning to end eternal and all powerful, cannot create one like himeself, would that not mean he cannot figure out how to do so? That would mean either he cannot do it (not all powerful) or he does not know how (not all-knowing).

If God creates "one like himself" then that means there is more than one God which is contrary to sripture. Scripture is clear that there is none other God but one.

So God is selfish or prideful to the point of not wanting equals. I personally am quite fine with the scriptural statements of God being a jealous God, though many would explain them away or ignore them. However, this would imply that he can do it, he just won't. Which one is it?

God is not selfish or prideful. Again God is Almighty.

juliann,

Your distinction between created and born is meaningless. It still takes male and female to create. I doubt many LDS are tied to the method behind creation.

The first man was not created by "male and female". God was alone and by himself during creation.

When I first came on the internet the mockery was over the very idea of deification. Now the critics have had to retreat to "well, you don't believe in the right kind of deification!" The missing piece, of course, is that our critics from other religions still lack a developed let alone prominent theology of deification of any kind.

See my earlier post the Catholic Church has prominent theology of deification which is consistent with the Bible.

[Rommelator]

Johnny:

I found your circular logic around those non-LDS scholars rather cute. Essentially, instead of confronting the opposing view points on human deification, you resorted by quoting Catholic dogma. In other words, because the Catholic Church says so, that automatically makes it true (or in this case, the LDS view of deification, false). With all due repsect, I could care less about what the Roman Catholic Church has to say on human deification. Now before you get all indignate, know that I have read over your website and many posts, and you have essentially said the same thing about the LDS Church. So don't cry victim here. The fact is that I am interested in what the Early Church Fathers and modern Christian scholars have to say on the issue, and not what the Catholic Church has to say about dogma. You want to hold to Catholic dogma? Fine. We all have our agency. But don't try to convince me by quoting Catholic dogma. In return, I will not quote what Latter-day Saint leaders and Prophets have said on this issue (scholars are a different thing). Let's stick strictly to scholarly exigesis and argument, shall we? Feel free to quote any and all Catholic scholars on the issue of human deification, but do not try to win me over with dogma. I will do the same. Sounds fair?

With that said, I do find your reponse telling. You did not bother to engauge in these scholars. You simply dismissed them because they disagree with you. Until you can gather a decent critique of these scholars, my argument (and theirs' as well) stands. Joseph Smith's teachings on human deification is consistant with the view held by the Early Church. His views are supported in both the Bible and the writings of both early Christian theologians. And now, modern scholars are catching up and necognizing that Joseph Smith's claims are consistant with the Early Church Fathers. The burden of proof now rests with you to disprove these scholars. (Hint: you may want to start by actually reading their works. See my above post with the links.)

I await your response...

"You mean the FORMER Catholic scholar and Mormon convert. He's a Mormon."

Oh, yeah, I forgot that as soon as someone becomes a Mormon that person is no longer reliable scholarly. But, seriously, he was a Catholic when he wrote and published his article, and became a Latter-day Saint afterwords because of his studies.

[BCSpace]

CFR Cite a Biblical reference which states definitively that God had no spouse and that mankind is merely adopted.

I don't know of any Bible reference that states definitively that God has no spouse.

There is a verse that shows God to have a female component (Genesis 5:2) and that is in the sense of being married; the image of God being directly compared to a married couple.

[johnny]

rommelator45,

The fact is that I am interested in what the Early Church Fathers and modern Christian scholars have to say on the issue, and not what the Catholic Church has to say about dogma.

Here is what the Early Church Fathers say on this issue, I might add it is the same thing the Catholic Church teaches. I would also add the teachings of the Early Church Father are contrary to the Mormon teaching of Deification.

"For, to attribute the substance of created things to the power and will of Him who is God of all, is worthy both of credit and acceptance. It is also agreeable [to reason], and there may be well said regarding such a belief, that 'the things which are impossible with men are possible with God.' While men, indeed, cannot make anything out of nothing, but only out of matter already existing, yet God is in this point proeminently superior to men, that He Himself called into being the substance of His creation, when previously it had no existence."

Irenaeus,Against Heresies,2,10:4(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:370

Irenaeus

"Of his own accord and by his own power he made all things and arranged and perfected them, and his will is the substance of all things. He alone, then, is found to be God; he alone is omnipotent, who made all things; he alone is Father, who founded and formed all things, visible and invisible, sensible and insensate, heavenly and earthly, by the Word of his power. And he has fitted and arranged all things by his wisdom; and while he comprehends all, he can be comprehended by none. He is himself the designer, himself the builder, himself the inventor, himself the maker, himself the Lord of all" (ibid., 2:30:9).

"And further, as God, because He is uncreated, is also unalterable; so if matter, too, were uncreated, it also would be unalterable, and equal to God; for that which is created is mutable and alterable, but that which is uncreated is immutable and unalterable. And what great thing is it if God made the world out of existent materials? For even a human artist, when he gets material from some one, makes of it what he pleases. But the power of God is manifested in this, that out of things that are not He makes whatever He pleases; just as the bestowal of life and motion is the prerogative of no other than God alone." Theophilus of Antioch,Autolycus,2:4(A.D. 181), in ANF,II:95

"The object of our worship is the One God, He who by His commanding word, His arranging wisdom, His mighty power, brought forth from nothing this entire mass of our world, with all its array of elements, bodies, spirits, for the glory of His majesty; whence also the Greeks have bestowed on it the name of Cosmos."

Tertullian,Apology,17:1(A.D. 197),in ANF,III:31

BCSpace,

There is a verse that shows God to have a female component (Genesis 5:2) and that is in the sense of being married; the image of God being directly compared to a married couple.

Genesis 5:2 does not show that God as "being married", it is showing that "God made them male and female" (Mark 10:6).

Gen.5

[2] Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Mark.10

[6] But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

[Rommelator]

Johnny:

How are earth do these quotes disqualify the LDS view of human deification? All that they indicate is that Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch and Tertullian held to a view of ex nihilo creation. What do they have to do with apotheosis, or human deification in regards to the LDS view? How do these quotes indicate that men cannot become gods and create "worlds without end"?

As a side, on the issue of Creatio ex nihilo, James Hubler stated:

Several New Testament texts have been educed as evidence of creatio ex nihilo. None makes a clear statement which would have been required to establish such an unprecedented position, or which we would need as evidence of such a break with tradition. None is decisive and each could easily be accepted by a proponent of creatio ex materia...The punctuation of [John 1:3] becomes critical to its meaning. Proponents of creatio ex materia could easily qualify the creatures of the Word to that "which came about," excluding matter. Proponents of creatio ex nihilo could place a period after "not one thing came about" and leave "which came about" to the next sentence. The absence of a determinate tradition of punctuation in New Testament [Greek] texts leaves room for both interpretations. Neither does creation by word imply ex nihilo...as we have seen in Egypt, Philo, and Midrash Rabba, and even in 2 Peter 3:5, where the word functions to organize pre-cosmic matter. (James N. Hubler, "Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas" (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 107â??

Furthermore, Gerhard May has pointed out:

The concept of creatio ex nihilo began to be adumbrated in Christian circles shortly before Galen's time. The first Christian thinker to articulate the rudiments of a doctrine of creatio ex nihilo was the Gnostic theologian Basilides, who flourished in the second quarter of the second century. Basilides worked out an elaborate cosmogony as he sought to think through the implications of Christian teaching in light of the platonic cosmogony. He rejected the analogy of the human maker, the craftsman who carves a piece of wood, as an anthropomorphism that severely limited the power of God. God, unlike mortals, created the world out of â??non-existingâ?? matter. He first brought matter into being through the creation of â??seedsâ??, and it is this created stuff that is fashioned, according to His will, into the cosmos. (Gerhard May, Schoepfung Aus Dem Nichts: Die Entstehung Der Lehre Von Der Creatio Ex Nihilo (Arbeiten Zur Kirchengeschichte, Vol 48) (Walter De Gruyter Inc, 1978), 63-85) emphasis added.

Non-LDS scholar Edwin Hatch reasoned:

With Basilides [a second century Gnostic philosopher], the conception of matter was raised to a higher plane. The distinction of subject and object was preserved, so that the action of the Transcendent God was still that of creation and not of evolution; but it was "out of that which was not" that He made things to be . . . . The basis of the theory was Platonic, though some of the terms were borrowed from both Aristotle and the Stoics. It became itself the basis for the theory which ultimately prevailed in the Church. The transition appears in Tatian [ca. 170 A.D.] (The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, 195â??196.) emphasis added.

All of those quotes and more, including quotes by Justin Martyr that reject ex nihilo, can be found here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Creatio_ex_nihilo#endnote_hatch1

Nice try, johnny, but not good enough.

You still have not dealt with my other scholarly quotes.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Welcome back, UD.

PS- arguing with Johnny is like arguing with a cd player set on repeat.

[BCSpace]

There is a verse that shows God to have a female component (Genesis 5:2) and that is in the sense of being married; the image of God being directly compared to a married couple.

Genesis 5:2 does not show that God as "being married",

Didn't say it did. But that is indeed the context.

it is showing that "God made them male and female"

And called their name Adam whcih has the effect combining them into the image of God.

[johnny]

rommelator45,

How are earth do these quotes disqualify the LDS view of human deification? All that they indicate is that Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch and Tertullian held to a view of ex nihilo creation. What do they have to do with apotheosis, or human deification in regards to the LDS view? How do these quotes indicate that men cannot become gods and create "worlds without end"?

The Mormon Church teaches that men can become a creator like God and that a man and wife are necessary for pro-creation.

- Irenaeus taught that God called in being the substance of his creation.

- Irenaeus taught that men cannot create like God.

- Theophilus taught that God is uncreated and that a man is not equal to God because they are created.

- Tertullian taught that by a command spirits are broght forth from nothing, in other words a heavenly mother is not need.

As a side, on the issue of Creatio ex nihilo, James Hubler stated:

Creatio ex nihilo comes from Genesis 1:1,2, it reveals that in the beginning God created heaven and earth, earth without form, and void. In 217 AD the early Christian Hippolytus explained this event

"On the first day God made what He made out of nothing. But on the other days He did not make out of nothing, but out of what He had made on the first day, by moulding it according to His pleasure."

Hippolytus, Six Days Work(Hexameron)(A.D. 217),in ANF,V:163

Furthermore, Gerhard May has pointed out:

The first Christian thinkers articulated the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, see link below for more quotes:

Ex Nihilo(Create from Nothing)

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/exnihilo.htm

"First Of all, believe that there is one God who created and finished all things, and made all things out of nothing."

Hermas,Shepard,2:1:1(A.D. 80),in ANF,II:20

[H]e[Hermogenes] takes from Him everything which is God, since he will not have it that He made all things of nothing." Tertullian,Hermogenes,1-2,in ANF,III:477

"The object of our worship is the One God, He who by His commanding word, His arranging wisdom, His mighty power, brought forth from nothing this entire mass of our world, with all its array of elements, bodies, spirits, for the glory of His majesty; whence also the Greeks have bestowed on it the name of Cosmos."

Tertullian,Apology,17:1(A.D. 197),in ANF,III:31

"Now, with regard to this rule of faith-that we may from this point acknowledge what it is which we defend-it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son."

Tertullian,Prescription Against the Heretics,13:1(A.D. 200),in ANF,III:249

"For if God produced all things whatever out of nothing, He will be able to draw forth from nothing even the flesh which had fallen into nothing; or if He moulded other things out of matter, He will be able to call forth the flesh too from somewhere else, into whatever abyss it may have been engulphed."

Tertullian, Resurrection of the Flesh,11(A.D. 210),in ANF,III:553

"First, That there is one God, who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed."

Origen, Fundamental Doctrines,Preface 1(A.D. 225),in ANF,IV:239

All of those quotes and more, including quotes by Justin Martyr that reject ex nihilo, can be found here:

Many Early Church Fathers would disagree with Justin Martyr (see links below).

Creation out of Nothing

http://www.catholic.com/library/Creation_Out_of_Nothing.asp

ECF Creation Out of Nothing

http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_creation_out_of_nothing.htm

Nice try, johnny, but not good enough.

The Early Church Fathers show that:

- a heavenly mother was not needed to create the first man

- that God is the Creator and men are creatures, men are not equal to God

- God is uncreated, men are created

- spirits do not come from a heavenly mother but came when God commanded

You still have not dealt with my other scholarly quotes.

I prefer the scholarly quotes from the Catholic Church teachings because they are consistent with the Early Church Fathers.

[Log]

And of course I affirm that sort of profession; so far as it goes.

It is only when a Mormon follows a line of religious deduction,

which leads him to conclude that a Reorganized LDS can never

come as close to God as he can, that I beg to differ.

If Mormons wish to cite various non-LDS writers on the subject

of theosis, or deification, or the plurality of gods, or becoming

one with God, that is fine with me.

It is only when Mormons conclude that all of those other, non-LDS

viewpoints amount to something less than Mormon teachings or

Mormon experience, that I again must state my opposition.

UD

It happens to be the case that God can, and does, impart propositional knowledge, such as affirming the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints's teachings with regards to salvation - necessity and possession of authority, ordinances, exclusivity, and so forth, and of such communication I testify. Since God is one, it follows that contradictory viewpoints do not spring from proximity to God.

[Magdalena]

I find it interesting that the LDS view discounts the deification of these people, and yet it is used as a rationale for believing in their own potential deification.

[Deborah]

I find it interesting that the LDS view discounts the deification of these people, and yet it is used as a rationale for believing in their own potential deification.

Huh?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I find it interesting that the LDS view discounts the deification of these people, and yet it is used as a rationale for believing in their own potential deification.

I find it intersting that you really have added nothing to any conversation. Whoa that was easy. I like asserting things.

[Uncle Dale]

It happens to be the case that God can, and does, impart propositional knowledge, such as affirming the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints's teachings with regards to salvation - necessity and possession of authority, ordinances, exclusivity, and so forth, and of such communication I testify. Since God is one, it follows that contradictory viewpoints do not spring from proximity to God.

Well then, you can testify to all sorts of things -- but I have yet

to see you quote recent General Authorities of the LDS Church

on the precept of mystical union with God. As I mentioned,

Apostle McConkie once gave counsel on this particular theological

question, but I am unaware of what more recent LDS GAs

have said, in regard to that sort of theosis.

Perhaps you can supplement your own testimony with some

references to messages from the First Presidency, or texts

of revelations, or even conference talks, to help Dr. Hamblin

fill out his list of writers and authorities on the subject.

But, before I break away and go off to do other things, do you mind

if I ask you one personal question, (aside from the GAs' statements)?

As you yourself progress more and more towards celestialization

and eventual godhood, what non-LDS brethren do you discern

will be closest "behind" you in that spiritual transformation?

Certainly you cannot relegate all of us to some lake of fire, as

complete sons of perdition. At least a few of us must come closer

to Heavenly Father than others -- and those good souls who do,

will be your near neighbors (in terms of sanctification, at least)

somewhere along your own path to deification.

Any suggestions as to whom among us "others" you perceive to be

blessed by Eloheim, almost as much as CK Mormons?

If the sort of non-LDS authorities cited by Dr. Hamblin are not among

them, I'd like to know that much at least.

UD

[Magdalena]

I find it intersting that you really have added nothing to any conversation. Whoa that was easy. I like asserting things.

Actually, I add a perspective. It's not always necessary to use a lot of words to do that.

[Catholic Girl]

He wasn't when he published that research, though.

This only shows what an aberrant Catholic he was. His particular order was known for lots of problems.

You have to recognize that this was JUST ONE aberrant Catholic priest. His thesis is completely INCOMPATIBLE with Catholic theology. If he continued with that heresy, he would have been excommunicated.

Therefore attempting to use his paper as evidence that Catholics and Mormons have the same definition of theosis is way off base and completely disingenious.

It would be somewhat like if I were looking for a list of non-Catholic scholars to validate transubstantiation and I cite.....say, DCP....who suddenly published some research paper that validates transubstantiation in the "sacrament" while still LDS and then a short time later converts to Catholicism.

Citing him as proof that the LDS Church also believes in transubstantiation would be way off base and completely disingenious. It's also laughable considering he converted. Your position would be a little better if that person remained Catholic or remained LDS. However, we both know that would never occur because both would be excommunicated for heresy.

The fact is, the Pope would reject the LDS definition of theosis/deification in nothing flat. I would expect President Monson to do the same with transubstantiation. Therefore, running around finding these lists of "non-my religion-scholars" who are preaching what we want validated from the outside is a complete waste of time.

As Catholics, we don't NEED lists of non-Catholic scholars to validate our theology. We're confident in it.

[Uncle Dale]

... It would be somewhat like if I were looking for a list of non-Catholic scholars to validate transubstantiation and I cite.....say, DCP.....

A somewhat different (but still relevant) comparison would consist of

LDS defenders citing St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila,

as examples of exceptional spiritual piety, obedience to ecclesiastical

authority, and proponents of Eastern Orthodoxy-style theosis -- and

thus trying to argue that those saints offer proof for LDS theologizing.

Leaving aside for a moment the very slight correspondence between

Mormonism and the Eastern Church, on such matters, selective quotes

from these saints might be patched together, to try and demonstrate

that they had a dim, but somewhat mistaken, conception of the LDS

tenet of eternal progression towards godhood.

I'm afraid that Dr. Hamblin is leading us off in that direction, whether

that was his original intention or not.

Certainly the vast majority of Mormons have no comprehension of

what is meant by "mystical union," the "life of prayer," or a dozen and

one other non-LDS precepts, which might somehow be summoned up in

a tortured attempt to justify and promote unique LDS doctrines.

However, how on earth does anyone even begin to communicate

the most basic understandings of our relationship with God, to those

who live in what appears to be some entirely different universe of

heart and mind?

Uncle Dale

[Deborah]

This only shows what an aberrant Catholic he was. His particular order was known for lots of problems....

Therefore attempting to use his paper as evidence that Catholics and Mormons have the same definition of theosis is way off base and completely disingenious.

I think the point was to show that non LDS-scholars have some thoughts more in line with LDS theology than their own traditional teachings. Whether he was an "aberrant" Catholic or not is beside the point. He obviously was a Mormon-in-waiting.

[Magdalena]

I think the point was to show that non LDS-scholars have some thoughts more in line with LDS theology than their own traditional teachings. Whether he was an "aberrant" Catholic or not is beside the point. He obviously was a Mormon-in-waiting.

A "mormon-in-waiting" ??

[Catholic Girl]

I think the point was to show that non LDS-scholars have some thoughts more in line with LDS theology than their own traditional teachings.

Exactly. And my point about that was SO WHAT if there are a few non-LDS scholars that have some thoughts in line with LDS theology? Is that thought to validate LDS theology then?

I just find it so amusing that LDS are so interested in trying to validate their theology with so-called non-LDS scholars. It really is a bizarre concept to a Catholic.

Whether he was an "aberrant" Catholic or not is beside the point. He obviously was a Mormon-in-waiting.

"Mormon-in-waiting"

That is EXACTLY what Jordan Vajda was.

[Daniel Peterson]

This only shows what an aberrant Catholic he was.

I take it that you knew Father Vajda well?

His particular order was known for lots of problems.

Assuming that to be true (for purposes of discussion), are all Dominicans aberrant Catholics?

Of the two syllogisms below, the first is valid, but the second is not:

All Dominicans were aberrant Catholics.

Jordan Vajda was a Dominican.

Therefore he was an aberrant Catholic.

Some Dominicans were aberrant Catholics.

Jordan Vajda was a Dominican.

Therefore he was an aberrant Catholic.

You have to recognize that this was JUST ONE aberrant Catholic priest. His thesis is completely INCOMPATIBLE with Catholic theology. If he continued with that heresy, he would have been excommunicated.

I won't presume to question your close ties to the Vatican and to Father Vajda's immediate ecclesiastical superiors. I'm confident that you wouldn't have said what you've just said without an absolutely firm basis in fact.

I'm curious, though. Some Catholics here have declare that it's no big deal if Mormons have a doctrine of deification comparable (at least in some minds) to ancient Christian theosis because Catholics have always taught that. You, by contrast, know that Father Vajda was facing excommunication for speaking positively of a teaching of deification. I'm trying to figure out how to reconcile those two assertions.

Therefore attempting to use his paper as evidence that Catholics and Mormons have the same definition of theosis is way off base and completely disingenious.

That settles it for me. Failure to agree with you is not only wrong, but reflects poorly on the dissenting person's character.

Therefore, running around finding these lists of "non-my religion-scholars" who are preaching what we want validated from the outside is a complete waste of time.

I'm absolutely sure that that must be true, since you assert it so vehemently. I don't understand the logic of your position, but I suppose I should affirm it as a mystery of the faith.

As Catholics, we don't NEED lists of non-Catholic scholars to validate our theology. We're confident in it.

You are admirable in every way.

I just find it so amusing that LDS are so interested in trying to validate their theology with so-called non-LDS scholars. It really is a bizarre concept to a Catholic.

While we, by contrast, are fools.

[Sleeper Cell]

And of course I affirm that sort of [Mormon] profession; so far as it goes.

Its good to have you back, Uncle Dale.

It is only when Mormons conclude â?¦ I again must state my opposition.

On second thought â?¦

[johnny]

Daniel Peterson,

I'm curious, though. Some Catholics here have declare that it's no big deal if Mormons have a doctrine of deification comparable (at least in some minds) to ancient Christian theosis because Catholics have always taught that.

Mormons doctrine of deification sounds very different than the doctrine of deification as described by Jordan Vajda (below are some of his words):

The Doctrine of Theosis, or Becoming a God

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publicatio...7&chapid=61

The essence/energies distinction helps to emphasize the fact that what God is by nature, what God is essentially, cannot be shared or participated in by any creature or created reality.

Although in essence the human person is ontologically different from God, the human person has nevertheless been created for communion with God, for divinization: to become by grace or free gift what God is by nature, essentially.

Clearly, then, human persons become "partakers of the divine nature" in a way that is existentially different from the way Christ is divine.

The supreme difference between human persons and Christ is that while humans are created persons, Christ is an uncreated person. What Christ is by nature, divine, we are called to be by grace or participation.

When a human is divinized, a human is united to God's divine energies?the "'divine nature' in which humanity participates is not the essence of God but God's divine energies"?which are God himself but only insofar as God is participable.

To paraphrase St. Maximus the Confessor (580?662), a divinized human person becomes all that God is except for identity in essence. In other words, a divinized human person does not cease to be human and created when participating in the uncreated and divinizing energies of God

Nor does the human person, when it 'becomes god,' cease to be human: 'We remain creatures while becoming god by grace, as Christ remained God when becoming man by the Incarnation.' The human being does not become God by nature, but merely a 'created god,' a god by grace or by status.

They do not, of course, alter the basic distinction between man and God as created and Creator, but they express the truth of the genuine regeneration as experienced by the man who enters into communion with the divinizing grace, which makes him a god in every respect "save identity of essence."

Summary

In similar fashion, the doctrine of theosis explains human divinization as being fundamentally a matter of participation. Between the persons of the triune God and human persons there is an infinite ontological divide?the difference between the uncreated and the created. God, however, bridges this ontological divide.

[Uncle Dale]

Its good to have you back, Uncle Dale.

Thanks!

On second thought â?¦

Speaking of thoughts -- you may recall that my purpose for posting

here is not to convince Mormons to think as I do......

.....but rather, just to convince them to think, period.

Yer Unk

[Uncle Dale]

...

While we, by contrast, are fools.

St. Paul and I happily welcome you to our doltish ranks.

(2nd Corinthians)

UD

[Daniel Peterson]

Mormons doctrine of deification sounds very different than the doctrine of deification as described by Jordan Vajda

Have you read his entire thesis? It's pretty clear that he believes that the Mormon doctrine of exaltation and the ancient Christian doctrine of theosis are, to put it mildly, relevantly similar.

And the fact that he converted to Mormonism puts something of an exclamation point behind that.

Incidentally, whenever people resort to the language of "ontology" to do Christian theology, we're into Greek philosophy rather than the world of the Bible.

It's not insignificant, I suspect, that Semitic languages lack a verb to be that is fully comparable to that verb in Greek, English, and the other Indo-European languages. Ontology is a Hellenic or Hellenistic mode of thinking that, in my opinion, doesn't translate well into (or from) Semitic modes of thinking. (The great Arab philosophers really struggled with this, especially in the early days, as they tried to develop an Arabic approach to essentially Aristotelian thought.)

Speaking of thoughts -- you may recall that my purpose for posting

here is not to convince Mormons to think as I do......

.....but rather, just to convince them to think, period.

I had a thought once. It was back in the early 1990s, if I recall correctly.

Without non-Mormons, though, I would probably never have experienced thinking at all.