Deification

[johnny]

Daniel Peterson,

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.

As a Mormon would you agree with his words above ... please explain?

[Uncle Dale]

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

Which leads us right back into Zen Buddhism, and from there to theosis,

and from there to Orson Pratt, Truman Madsen and Sterling McMurrin.

In such august company, who needs an overactive cerebral cortex?

UD

[Bill Hamblin]

There are, of course, two basically opposing views of theosis in world religions --

One view is that of becoming a god -- the other, is that of uniting with God.

Not "becoming" a god, but being made a god (which could be called theopoesis). It is not, I would argue, possible to be made a god without becoming one, or uniting (henosis) with God.

The other view point includes the precept of mystical union with God, and is

found in many cultures, throughout history, world-wide. By extension, this

viewpoint even covers the non-theistic professions of Buddhism, Taoism, etc.

It is not clear how (allegedly) non-theists can believe in deification in any form. There are, if I understand things correctly, non-theistic realities in the cosmos with which one could become one, but why should this be called theosis?

In this second view of theosis, we, as spiritual beings, can become defied

by approaching closer and closer to God, either through our own surrender,

or by God's grace (or by a combination of both). While this second view may

include the religious trappings of heavenly beings, personal exaltation, etc.,

most expressions of mystical spirituality go beyond that, to articulate a

realization transcending the physical cosmos -- encompassing or surpassing

time-space. In this explanation of things, physical "gods" are not the ultimate

reality/possibility, but rather, they fall short of the Ground of All Being.

Granted one can engage in henosis mysticism without believing in theopoesis-style deification, but I still don't understand why there is any reason to insist that theopoesis precludes henosis.

[Daniel Peterson]

As a Mormon would you agree with his words above ... please explain?

Read his entire thesis, Johnny. I'm not interested in a conversation with you. (Been there, done that.)

You might also find interesting Keith Norman's 1980 Duke University doctoral dissertation, Deification and the Content of Athanasian Soteriology, which, like Father Vajda's thesis, was reprinted by FARMS. (I imagine that they're both up on the FARMS/Maxwell Institute web site.)

[Bill Hamblin]

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?

How could we possibly know or judge such things? (Mt 7:1) (What arrogance compels you to think that you can?) Why would we want to? I'm content to leave such things in the hands of God, where they properly belong.

[Uncle Dale]

Granted one can engage in henosis mysticism without believing in theopoesis-style deification, but I still don't understand why there is any reason to insist that theopoesis precludes henosis.

All quibbles over "becoming" set aside, I tend to agree with you.

I have yet to hear how Mormonism responds to the precept of

becoming one with God, in the sense that the human persona

is totally extinguished. My guess is that the LDS rarely contemplate

such stuff (if stuff it be).

On the other hand, how growing in glory also includes growing

in humility eludes my grasp. I would think that in this sense at

least, the first would be last and the last would be first -- which is

not a bad summary of Christian mystical theologizing, by the way.

UD

How could we possibly know or judge such things? (Mt 7:1) (What arrogance compels you to think that you can?) Why would we want to? I'm content to leave such things in the hands of God, where they properly belong.

Second time tonight I find myself agreeing with you --

must be some sort of a record.

Uncle "As for arrogance -- I've had some excellent teachers." Dale

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

I posted some new books on deification that I thought might be of interest to some on this list. I made no comment whatsoever, other than to observe that there are anti-Mormons who claim such ideas are non-Christian.

Certainly the vast majority of Mormons have no comprehension of

what is meant by "mystical union," the "life of prayer."

How could you possibly know such a thing?

I should note, by the way, that theopoesis-style deification is much older than henosis-style mysticism.

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?

Indeed.

[Calm]

(I imagine that they're both up on the FARMS/Maxwell Institute web site.)

This link goes to all four FARMS papers, including these two:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papersmain.php

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

Personally, I abandoned thinking long ago. Why, without your help, I suspect all of Utah would be well nigh brain-dead.

[Bill Hamblin]

All quibbles over "becoming" set aside, I tend to agree with you.

I don't find it to be a quibble. I find the distinction fundamental.

I have yet to hear how Mormonism responds to the precept of

becoming one with God, in the sense that the human persona

is totally extinguished. My guess is that the LDS rarely contemplate

such stuff (if stuff it be).

On the other hand, how growing in glory also includes growing

in humility eludes my grasp. I would think that in this sense at

last, the first would be last and the last would be first -- which is

not a bad summary of Christian mystical theologizing, by the way.

A zen master once said:

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?

Apophatically yours

Bill

[Uncle Dale]

I don't find it to be a quibble. I find the distinction fundamental.

OK, then let's talk about that for a while.

According to LDS teaching, will you progress to the

point of being a god; or to being God Almighty?

A real question -- (I do not know the answer in advance).

But, whatever the answer may be, how does it differ

from the realization that you are already one with God

(no progression nor becoming necessary)?

If we are already one with God, does realization of that

fundamental unity arise from God's grace or from our

own efforts?

A zen master once said:

Apophatically yours

Bill

Never knew any Zen masters, so I'm not good at quoting them.

Have known a few genuine followers of Jesus though -- and that

has been a blessing.

UD

[Bill Hamblin]

OK, then let's talk about that for a while.

According to LDS teaching, will you progress to the

point of being a god; or to being God Almighty?

A real question -- (I do not know the answer in advance).

But, whatever the answer may be, how does it differ

from the realization that you are already one with God

(no progression nor becoming necessary)?

If we are already one with God, does realization of that

fundamental unity arise from God's grace or from our

own efforts?

Never knew any Zen masters, so I'm not good at quoting them.

Have known a few genuine followers of Jesus though -- and that

has been a blessing.

UD

It is better to experience, than simply to "teach" or be "taught."

Mystical union with God, taught as a doctrine of religion

remains mere human words, opinions, speculation.

But those who do come closer to God -- as members of the

body of Christ -- as joint-heirs with Jesus -- as true saints,

know from experience, rather than simply from "teachings."

Any religionist who assumes the responsibility of describing

God -- of saying what God is and what God is not -- and what

our ultimate relationship to God can be, takes on a heavy burden.

Human words will always fall short of communicating the perfection

of God -- but in our coming closer to God we can get beyond

problematic teachings, and KNOW for ourselves.

[Uncle Dale]

.

And thus Satan casteth out Satan and the problem solves itself.

[Bill Hamblin]

And thus Satan casteth out Satan and the problem solves itself.

Get thee behind me.

To give a brief, only slightly more serious answer.

I don't know what deification will ultimately entail; there is a lot of speculation about it, but I suspect one has to experience it to know.

As for the following claim:

But, whatever the answer may be, how does it differ

from the realization that you are already one with God

(no progression nor becoming necessary)?

If we are already one with God, does realization of that

fundamental unity arise from God's grace or from our

own efforts?

I disagree with the fundamental premise. I don't believe that we are "already one with God" in the tat tvam asi sense.

Christian conceptualizations of divine-human oneness derive ultimately from John 17. There, Christ makes two distinctions.

First, he is not talking about "the world" (9, 14, 16). That implies that there are some who are not "already one with God" and presumably never will be.

Second, he talks about becoming one with Christ and God as something yet to be fulfilled for the apostles (11), and their future disciples (20-23). Again this implies that they are "not already one with God."

[Uncle Dale]

I disagree with the fundamental premise. I don't believe that we are "already one with God"

in the tat tvam asi sense.

Interesting. You do understand what I'm talking about,

so I humbly discount down by several points my earlier

presumption that few of my Provoite cousins would.

With me it is not so much a matter of "belief," as it is

attempting to find words to express what you have

already quoted back to me -- that words alone will

fail us in such communications.

But, if we can get beyond belief, to singular awareness,

the sanskrit maxim comes close to how I would try and

say it -- had I the "pure Adamic language" on my tongue.

So we differ there -- but I do not yet know if that differing

extends to all Mormons. Or, if like locating the BoM geography

or determining the age of the earth, there are allowable

difference between saints singing the same hymns on the

same bench on Sunday mornings. I suspect that there are at

least a few faithful LDS who might nod yes at my profession.

Christian conceptualizations of divine-human oneness derive ultimately from John 17.

There, Christ makes two distinctions.

First, he is not talking about "the world" (9, 14, 16). That implies that there are some who are not "already one with God" and presumably never will be.

Second, he talks about becoming one with Christ and God as something yet to be fulfilled for the apostles (11), and their future disciples (20-23). Again this implies that they are "not already one with God."

Yes, you've got it right. Yet another reason I am not a Christian,

nor sustain the Christian canon.

John was not a pantheist, unless we go back to "In the beginning"

and stop reading immediately at that verse. Neither am I a

pantheist, in that sense. And yet, I perceive all the cosmos to

be a manifestation of God's Word. What separates that from

Johannine Christology is the reality (or non-reality) of time itself.

A good place to end my tautologies and have a nice warm bath.

Good night.

UD

[johnny]

Daniel Peterson,

Read his entire thesis, Johnny. I'm not interested in a conversation with you. (Been there, done that.)

Let's discuss Mr. Vajda paper, I have read the entire paper. I would agree with him when he says "there are "profoundly different ontological visions of human and divine nature."

Mr. Vajda paper nicely demonostrates that God did not climber a ladder to become God. His paper shows how wide the divide is between the Mormon doctrine of deification and the orthodox Christian doctrine of deification.

His paper emphasizes that:

- Man is not the same species as God

- God is not an exalted man

- God and a Heavenly mother did not bore spirit children

- Humans are not literal offspring of God

- Humans are not gods in embroy

- God did not become God

- The Son of God did not become God

- The Father and the Son are not "a god"

- There are not "three gods"

In his paper he writes:

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]

... To paraphrase St. Maximus the Confessor (580?662), a divinized human person becomes

all that God is except for identity in essence. ...

It was by their adherence to such church doctrine that the great Spanish

Carmelite mystics were able to articulate union with God and not be declared

heterodox by their ecclesiastical superiors.

One analogy thus given is that of the spiritual flame of God, in which the

individual created soul is refined, to such an extent that no iota of human

carnality (nor separation from God) remains. Even the thoughts, love and

will of that soul are God's ---- but the identity Maximus speaks of

is not erased nor extinguished.

Were that identity dissolved, a description of that outcome would equate man

with God, in much the same way that trinitarians equate Christ with God.

And that would not only be heterodox teaching, it would be terrible blasphemy.

On this single doctrinal point, at least, I'd guess that the LDS agree -- no man

can be transformed into Eloheim, nor be merged with Eloheim, nor replace

Eloheim in the way that Zeus replaced Kronos in Greek mythological religion.

So much for Christian and Mormon doctrine -- they do not exhaust the sum total

of human attempts at communicating deification/divine union, however.

Uncle Dale

[Catholic Girl]

I take it that you knew Father Vajda well?

I did not claim to know him. However, I can certainly comment on the actions of a priest writing heretical papers and then joining another religion. Iâ??m sure youâ??ll be disappointed to learn that this does not occur oftenâ??hence the use of the word â??aberrantâ?.

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

How could you possibly assume this to be true? It is a HUGE stretch from my original statement and you know it. It is obvious you want to begin the construction of one Zozobra-sized strawmanâ??be my guest.

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

***BEWARE, this is a hard hat area***

All Dominicans were aberrant Catholics.

Jordan Vajda was a Dominican.

Therefore he was an aberrant Catholic.

***I'm sorry, I can't hear you over all the hammering and drilling. You'll have to speak LOUDER!***

Some Dominicans were aberrant Catholics.

Jordan Vajda was a Dominican.

Therefore he was an aberrant Catholic.

***Quitting time***

Congratulations! That is one heckuva strawman!

It is well-known in the Catholic community that the Western Dominican Province at St. Albertâ??s Priory had many problems during the time Jordan Vajda was there. You can read the complaints of some of the seminarians here http://www.sffaith.com/ed/articles/2004/0411rk.htm

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.

It is rather difficult to get excommunicated from the Catholic Church, especially if you are simply a rank-and-file member. However, less tolerance is granted to Catholic priests publicly spreading â??division and confusion among the Faithfulâ?? in print. So it is not an illogical assumption that he would have eventually been excommunicated if he were to continue with his apostasy and heresies.

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

We know that Jordan Vajda is a Mormon and has been a Mormon since 2003. Yet he is continually misrepresented as and cited as a Catholic priest to in order to validate LDS deification from a Catholic position by all LDS apologists and apologetic websites. That is wrong factually and it IS disingenuous. Keep in mind that one of these â??charactersâ? is FARMS: http://farms.byu.edu/viewauthor.php?authorID=435 This mischaracterization is allowed to persist on an LDS apologetic website for 5 years AFTER his conversion to Mormonism. That certainly does speak to the character of this organization....it is intentionally misleading.

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.

You are admirable in every way.

While we, by contrast, are fools.

So you evade addressing my point by attempting to insult me. My assertion remains: If you truly believed you were the Restoration of the apostatized church, you certainly shouldnâ??t have a need to be looking for lists of apostate scholars to validate your restoration and theology. I thought the LDS â??have the fullness of the gospelâ?? and â??know more about God, and Christ, and the Plan of Salvation than anyoneâ?? right? That is the difference. Catholics claim â??the ONE TRUE Churchâ? title and our actions of never referencing apostate scholars to validate our theology are consistent with that claim. Needing validation from the outside shows a lack of confidence and is a very weak position.

[BCSpace]

Mr. Vajda paper nicely demonostrates that God did not climber a ladder to become God.

[A secondary note: Considering what the trinity is, perhaps we should clarify what you mean by "God". Typically, in the trinitarian vernacular, 'God" is neither the Father or the Son or the HG, but all three interpenetrating personalities together. Hence it make no sense for a trinitarian to consider this question.

However, since none of the ECF were trinitarians in any modern sense, it's more intuitive to ask this in the LDS sense because in our vernacular, "God" refers to only one of the Three, usually the Father.]

It is true that there is nothing in the ECF (as far as I can tell) showing that God Himself (the Father) was once a mortal man. However, since virtually every other LDS doctrine about the Godhead and Deiifcation is present among them, it is more reasonable to think that this doctrine was lost than it is to think that it never existed outside the scriptures.

[Deborah]

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 thought it has been clearly expressed by myself and others that we do not use non-LDS scholars to "validate" our theology. We use them to demonstrate to non-LDS that there are others who have found the same truths through their own study, and perhaps prayer.

[Uncle Dale]

I thought it has been clearly expressed by myself and others that we do not use non-LDS scholars to "validate" our theology. We use them to demonstrate to non-LDS that there are others who have found the same truths through their own study, and perhaps prayer.

I think you are voicing an important distinction, and I am always

happy to encounter faithful LDS who speak in such terms.

But I cannot say that is the case for all that I have encountered,

in various places and at various times over many years.

Take the question of whether or not a non-Mormon can truly

realize "progression to godhood" outside of the LDS ordinances

and practices. I am positive that some Mormons would say "no;"

and I would not be surprised at all, if the very next poster in

this thread said something along those lines.

But, as I just said, I have encountered more thoughtful, or more

discerning LDS who might instead answer, "I do not know;" or

even, "Perhaps so, that is entirely up to God."

The difference in these two points of view was well demonstrated

in a thread we had here, back in the old FAIR days -- when one

poster argued that LDS ordinances automatically effected things

"beyond the veil," and charity made the corrections, "so far as we

know," and that "after all we have done, it's still in God's hands."

To an outsider like myself, the difference between those two ways

of stating things, is the difference between sweet nectar and pure poison.

If you catch my drift.

Your Uncle Dale

[Rommelator]

So, from what I am reading from the posts of Catholic posters, ex-Father Vajda was the Thomas Stuart Furgeson of Catholicism. Now do you see what the Latter-day Saints have to deal with whenever Thomas Stuart Furgeson is mentioned as some kind of evidence against the Church? It get's annoying, huh?

Needing validation from the outside shows a lack of confidence and is a very weak position.

And yet this is EXACTY what non-LDS critics of the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham and other Latter-day Saint issues DEMAND! They demand that the claims of the Latter-day Saints be "proven" by "objective, non-biased, impartial" non LDS scholars. Many posters on this board, including scores of Evangelical and Catholic posters, demand that Joseph Smith's claims be approved by non-LDS scholars. Just the other day, Yme wrote how the Book of Mormon's historicity should only be determined by non-LDS scholars and that Drs. Clark and Sorenson are not reliable in their research because they have not published their work defending Book of Mormon historicity outside of LDS publications. The same goes for the Book of Abraham. John Gee, Hugh Nibley and Michael Rhodes are thrown out of the equation and shrugged off because they are biased Mormons who have emotional attachments to Joseph Smith. Nope, they won't do. Instead, many posters here have insisted that they will not be satisfied unless a non-LDS Egyptologist verifies Joseph Smith's interpretations of the facsimilies.

And yet they then turn aroun and make remarks like the one above. They blissfully declare that they don't care if their claims are validated by people not of their faith, but then demand that from the Latter-day Saints.

Do you see the double standard here? It really drives me mad!

However, Catholic Girl, the Latter-day Saints don't need validation from outside sources. Anyone whose testimony does rely on it, or secular human knowledge for that matter, is on a foundation of sand. Our testimony in Jesus Christ and the restored Gospel comes from revelation and personal testimony gained by the spirit. We do not rely on the arm of flesh to convince us of our doctrines or scriptures. It is nice and interesting to see the claims of Joseph Smith validated by secular means, heck, it might even help some people in building their testimony. I, for example, love to read about the secular evidence for the Book of Mormon's historicity and am very interested in discovering new insights that confirm Joseph Smith's claims on a secular level. But my ultimate comittment to the Church and my testimony in the Book of Mormon (as well as to Jesus Christ above all) comes from the personal witness of the spirit that I have gained. Everything else, FARMS, FAIR, etc. and their works are secondary to the witness of the spirit.

Your strawman is, therefore, unimpressive. Please don't continue to misrepresent the Latter-day Saints. (I sincerely hope that I have not done the same with Catholics. If I have, I apologize.)

[Magdalena]

I thought it has been clearly expressed by myself and others that we do not use non-LDS scholars to "validate" our theology. We use them to demonstrate to non-LDS that there are others who have found the same truths through their own study, and perhaps prayer.

I really don't see the difference between "validate" and "demonstrate".

[Daniel Peterson]

I did not claim to know him.

Then you pronounced harsh judgment upon him without knowing him.

However, I can certainly comment on the actions of a priest writing heretical papers and then joining another religion.

Have you actually read his thesis Partakers of the Divine Nature?

Do you believe that he departs from mainstream Christian orothodoxy in it? On the basis of your own understanding of the ancient doctrine of theosis, are you prepared to identify his specific errors and to critique them? (His thesis committee, at the Graduate Theological Union, appear to have believed that he did an acceptable job with his sources, etc. But, clearly, they're not inerrant, and your critique would fill a real need.)

Iâ??m sure youâ??ll be disappointed to learn that this does not occur oftenâ??hence the use of the word â??aberrantâ?.

Dang. And here I thought that most Catholic priests converted to Mormonism.

Well, it's reassuring to know that, by aberrant, you didn't actually mean "heretical" or "deviant," but merely "uncommon."

Congratulations! That is one heckuva strawman!

It's not, of course.

he would have eventually been excommunicated if he were to continue with his apostasy and heresies.

For the existence of which you've provided precisely no evidence.

We know that Jordan Vajda is a Mormon and has been a Mormon since 2003. Yet he is continually misrepresented as and cited as a Catholic priest to in order to validate LDS deification from a Catholic position by all LDS apologists and apologetic websites.

By all of them.

All the time, I wonder?

That is wrong factually and it IS disingenuous.

Oh, absolutely!

Keep in mind that one of these â??charactersâ? is FARMS: http://farms.byu.edu/viewauthor.php?authorID=435.

The biography for Jordan Vajda that appears on the FARMS or Maxwell Institute website is the biography that appeared on the hardcopy publication of Partakers of the Divine Nature when it came from the press. He was a Catholic priest at the time.

The biographies of virtually all of the authors for FARMS or the Maxwell Institute are those that were true/current at the time that their publication(s) appeared. Usually, the biographical data pertinent to the most recent publication is what appears on the web site. Thus, for instance:

"Nathan Oman (JD, Harvard Law School) is a law clerk for the Honorable Morris Sheppard Arnold, United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Little Rock, Arkansas."

Actually, though, Nate Oman (a former student of mine) has since worked for a private law firm in the Washington DC area and, subsequent to that, assumed a professorship of law at William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia, where he still teaches.

This mischaracterization is allowed to persist on an LDS apologetic website for 5 years AFTER his conversion to Mormonism. That certainly does speak to the character of this organization....it is intentionally misleading.

I can easily point you to even more egregious examples of wrongdoing. For example, I just pulled a book off of the shelf to my right, chosen essentially at random: Fawn M. Brodie, The Devil Drives: A Life of Sir Richard Burton (New York: Norton, 1967). The biographical data about Ms. Brodie included on the back cover of the book indicates that "With her author husband and their three children, she lives in Pacific Palisades, California." But this is a lie! She's been dead for decades!

You seem to have a strong (and, to me, rather strange) urge to blacken the character of those with whom you disagree.

My assertion remains:

Why, of course it does.

And, for that matter, it remains mere assertion, too.

If you truly believed you were the Restoration of the apostatized church, you certainly shouldnâ??t have a need to be looking for lists of apostate scholars to validate your restoration and theology.

So you're saying that we really don't believe in our religious beliefs?

Of course, your statement is ridiculous. We don't need "validation" for our claims.

But scholarly articles cite scholarly publications, regardless of the religious affiliations of their authors. That's how it's done. And Catholics do it, too. Just look through any issue of the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, The Thomist, the American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, or any comparable Catholic journal, and then try to tell me again, with a straight face, that Catholic scholars don't quote non-Catholic scholars.

I thought the LDS â??have the fullness of the gospelâ?? and â??know more about God, and Christ, and the Plan of Salvation than anyoneâ?? right? That is the difference. Catholics claim â??the ONE TRUE Churchâ? title and our actions of never referencing apostate scholars to validate our theology are consistent with that claim.

Right. Yes. Those actions.

Again, I reach immediately to my right. I pull down Michael O'Carroll, C.S.Sp., ed., Trinitas: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1987). I turn to the pages of "Abbreviations" for commonly-cited works. From among the many, many non-Catholic works listed there, I choose, for purposes of illustration, J. N. D. Kelly's Early Christian Creeds as well as J. N. D. Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines, and I recall that J. N. D. Kelly was an Anglican priest who served as principal at Oxford's St. Edmund Hall and as canon of Chichester Cathedral.

Needing validation from the outside shows a lack of confidence and is a very weak position.

Nobody is saying that we need "validation from the outside." But if simply quoting from "outsiders" in order to support an argument indicates "a lack of confidence and . . . a very weak position," then you might want to consider that old saying about glass houses and stones.

By the way, many Maxwell Institute or FARMS critics fault Mormon scholars for, supposedly, only quoting each other, in a form of scholarly incest. It now appears, though, that, if we quote anybody else, we're also damned. Pretty funny, that.

[Deborah]

I really don't see the difference between "validate" and "demonstrate".

"demonstrate to non-LDS that there are others who have found the same truths through their own study." There is a tremendous difference as validate implies supporting one's own views whereas demonstrating to someone else is to point out that there are others who have come to the same conclusion. When missionaries teach the Gospel they use the book others are most familiar with, the Bible. We don't do that to validate our beliefs but to show them why those beliefs are scriptural in a form they can relate to.