Did Joseph Smith Restore Theosis? Part Five: Early Church Fathers

[juliann]

I can't speak for evangelicals since I am of a different religious persuasion, but there does seem to be a broader trend in recent decades of evangelicals (and other Protestants) coming to terms with the historic Christian tradition and the early church fathers, including, but not limited to, the doctrine of theosis. Sometimes this goes as far as people converting to Orthodoxy or Catholicism (there's actually a cottage industry for publishing those kind of 'conversion' stories). How much of a role the LDS-EV interaction has played in all of this I don't really know, but it is an interesting suggestion.

This was a groundbreaking article http://www.forananswer.org/Top_LDS/Evangelical_Neglect.htm by Owen and Mosser, both worthy evangelical apologists with a special interest in countering Mormonism whom we had the pleasure of interacting with. Owen eventually went Orthodox. I don't for a minute think that having to face deification doctrines didn't have something to do with that. Mr. Bowman's complete misunderstanding of the importance of this....and its duration outside of his limited theological boundaries noted by Owen and Mosser... is evident in the title of this thread.

I don't post often but I do hope you find some time to share your insights.

[juliann]

The apostasy was never "essentially complete." There has always been some degree of truth. The "main thing" that was lost and subsequently restored was priesthood authority. The apostasy (loss) of true doctrine took place very, very gradually and was never "complete" by any means.

Realize that how we define "apostasy" is not really a time where there is no (or less) truth, but rather when God's priesthood authority is not operating on the earth, no matter how much or how little truth is being taught. This has happened several times. The opposite of "apostasy" is "dispensation," a period of time when priesthood authority is on the earth.

This is an important distinction that is inconvenient for anti-Mormon ministries. I don't think that "apostasy" is a particularly helpful term. We take it for granted in the Old Testament and I simply see it as a continuation of what my OT prof called "the risings and fallings" in the history of the covenant people.

[irenaeus]

I think thats a bit of an exaggeration. Early Christianity was quite a variegated phenomena, and I don't think you can make a sweeping generalization like that.

If this isn't going off-topic too much, I would be interested in knowing what you think in early Christianity specifically supports the claims of the Catholic or Orthodox churches.

I like sweeping generalizations, I'll admit to that. I was referring to the catholic or proto-orthodox tradition in early Christianity. What the various gnostic sects believed is another can of worms.

What in early Christianity supports the claims of the Catholic/Orthodox churches? That's a big question to answer, I'll try to give a brief outline of how I see it, Let me also note that over the years there have been a fair number of Protestant clergy and laypeople who, on exposure to the history of the early church, made the often painful and costly decision to move towards Catholicism or Orthodoxy because they saw those churches as the heirs of the early Christian church.

So, in my understanding, by the second and the third centuries we see the following aspects of (proto-orthodox) Christianity that tend to support the Orthodox and/or Catholic claims:

1) The three fold ministry of bishop, presbyter, and deacon as the basic organizational structure of the church

2) The idea of bishops being the successors of the apostles in terms of their capacity to govern the church and administer the sacraments. You were either under the authority of your local, duly ordained, catholic bishop or you were outside the church

3) The center of Christian worship being focused on the Eucharistic sacrifice, which they took to really be, in some sense, the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ

4) The importance of an organized visible body that is the Church and which is entered by water baptism

5) The special status of the church of Rome in the universal church (although the practical implications of that status remained undefined)

6) An immaterial transcendant God who created all things out of nothing

7) Jesus as having both a divine and human nature, which were considered two completely distinct categories

The veneration of martyrs and their relics

9) The use of the name 'catholic church' to distinguish the apostolic church from its rivals

10) We even have specific prayers and practices associated with the sacraments that are still found in present day Catholic and Orthodox worship

11) Emphasis on the importance of Mary in salvation history as the 'new Eve' who cancels out Eve's disobedience with her own submission to God's will. We also start to see Mary being called 'all-holy'.

12) We also start to see signs of the emergence of the liturgical year, especially with regards to the Lenten fast before Easter and weekly fasting on Fridays (the day of the crucifixion) and a rule against fasting on Sundays (the day of the resurrection)

13) The respect given to those who chose a lifetime of celibacy in imitation of Jesus (although celibacy wasn't a mandatory rule for clergy, but marriage after ordination was forbidden)

[irenaeus]

This was a groundbreaking article http://www.foranansw...cal_Neglect.htm by Owen and Mosser, both worthy evangelical apologists with a special interest in countering Mormonism whom we had the pleasure of interacting with. Owen eventually went Orthodox. I don't for a minute think that having to face deification doctrines didn't have something to do with that. Mr. Bowman's complete misunderstanding of the importance of this....and its duration outside of his limited theological boundaries noted by Owen and Mosser... is evident in the title of this thread.

I don't post often but I do hope you find some time to share your insights.

That's interesting about Owen. Thanks for the link!

[irenaeus]

The apostasy was never "essentially complete." There has always been some degree of truth. The "main thing" that was lost and subsequently restored was priesthood authority. The apostasy (loss) of true doctrine took place very, very gradually and was never "complete" by any means.

Realize that how we define "apostasy" is not really a time where there is no (or less) truth, but rather when God's priesthood authority is not operating on the earth, no matter how much or how little truth is being taught. This has happened several times. The opposite of "apostasy" is "dispensation," a period of time when priesthood authority is on the earth and the Church is being led by a prophet whom God has personally chosen as His "mouthpiece," through whom He can speak to the Church as whole. In other words, apostasy = no priesthood, which = no revelation (and by "revelation" I mean revelation for the whole Church; personal revelation never went away). It doesn't really have to do with truth. It's just that without revelation, false doctrines will slowly creep in. It is, after all, the rock of revelation upon which the Church is to be built. This is what we believe Matthew 16:15-18 means.

A lot of people misunderstand this. It all starts with a loss of priesthood authority.

I would agree about the importance of the priesthood thing. From a Catholic perspective, its the Orthodox Church's apostolic priesthood succession that makes their organization a 'church'. By contrast, for Catholics, the various Protestant denominations are not technically 'churches' but rather 'ecclesiastical communities' because they lack the apostolic succession.

When do you think that priesthood authority disappeared (ignoring the apostle John or the Book of Mormon peoples)? Surely there were many potentially faithful men in the Roman Empire in the first and second centuries who could have continued the priesthood chain. We know that many of them went to horrible deaths rather than deny their Lord.

[altersteve]

I would agree about the importance of the priesthood thing. From a Catholic perspective, its the Orthodox Church's apostolic priesthood succession that makes their organization a 'church'. By contrast, for Catholics, the various Protestant denominations are not technically 'churches' but rather 'ecclesiastical communities' because they lack the apostolic succession.

When do you think that priesthood authority disappeared (ignoring the apostle John or the Book of Mormon peoples)? Surely there were many potentially faithful men in the Roman Empire in the first and second centuries who could have continued the priesthood chain. We know that many of them went to horrible deaths rather than deny their Lord.

I don't think there were any people who were given the keys of the kingdom after Peter, so there was no authority to lead the Church as a whole after his martyrdom, though I could be wrong. I'm not sure when priesthood authority disappeared completely, though. But I'd say that after Peter died, the Church as an organization basically shattered, since there was no President of the Church, as we today would call him. Would anyone else agree with this?

Edited November 5, 2011 by altersteve

[irenaeus]

I don't think there were any people who were given the keys of the kingdom after Peter, so there was no authority to lead the Church as a whole after his martyrdom, though I could be wrong. I'm not sure when priesthood authority disappeared completely, though. But I'd say that after Peter died, the Church as an organization basically shattered, since there was no President of the Church, as we today would call him. Would anyone else agree with this?

Does the President of the Church alone hold all the priesthood keys or do the other apostles as a group hold the keys? When one prophet dies how is the next prophet given the keys? Does the dying prophet pass them on through the laying on of hands? Or is the transfer automatic in some sense? I never really understood the mechanics of the succession process to the presidency of the LDS church. I'm curious what the details are, if anyone happens to know

[juliann]

I don't think it ended with the apostles because those who were ordained would remain. They would still be able to operate within their sphere of authority. But whatever had to be done by higher authorities couldn't be done. I visualize what would happen if a geographical area of the modern church was cut off from all contact with the majority of leadership being killed. Some wards would be able to function, some would fall apart quickly. People would step up and try to fill the breach and conflict would arise. The Romans were good at picking off the leaders. I think Ignatius paints a very good picture of what transpired.

Irenaeus, I agree with your construction of later centuries. Mormons are more interested in the first century, however. Or as Nibley put it, "when the lights went out". Whatever went into the second century came out looking very different. That is our concern. Origen sums it up in his opening of First Principles when he says that he is laying out everything as it was handed down to them. In the Mormon view, there should be no need for an independent theologian trying to recreate and argue for doctrines. He should have just picked up the phone and called the president of the church. But instead there were competing factions in complete disarray.....I believe the title of one of the better LDS writings on the "apostasy" was titled Early Christians in Disarray.

(Edited to add that I have run across extra-canonical writing in which Peter was referred to as president )

Edited November 5, 2011 by juliann

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for the welcome! I'll probably end up reading more than posting on this board. I like to see how different people approach their theology and beliefs. Its educational for me and helps me develop and refine my own views. But these religious discussion boards can be a huge time sink for me personally and I should probably take a sabbatical from Mormon related forums for a year or two. But like a moth to a flame, I can't seem to resist.

It's interesting that you chose the avatar that you did- what Irenaeus is wearing in that icon speaks directly to the discussion at hand, but it is not something we usually speak of outside the temple. The very choice of that icon in fact is evidence in our favor.

[Flyonthewall]

Does the President of the Church alone hold all the priesthood keys or do the other apostles as a group hold the keys? When one prophet dies how is the next prophet given the keys? Does the dying prophet pass them on through the laying on of hands? Or is the transfer automatic in some sense? I never really understood the mechanics of the succession process to the presidency of the LDS church. I'm curious what the details are, if anyone happens to know

We believe that all keys of the priesthood are held by the President of the church as an individual, and also, by the quorum of the 12 Apostles collectively.

As I understand it, the keys of the preisthood held collectively by the 12 are somewhat dormant until the President dies. Upon the death of the President, the priesthood keys held by the 12 are "activated" so the running of the church continues under those keys. (there is no rite or ceremony involced to activate those keys, they just are)

The 12 Apostles then select the next President, traditionally being the most senior Apostle, according to the time of service, not age.

Now the concepts of "dormant" and "activated" may be conveyed better by someone else but hopefully it gives you something to go on.

[mfbukowski]

Does the President of the Church alone hold all the priesthood keys or do the other apostles as a group hold the keys? When one prophet dies how is the next prophet given the keys? Does the dying prophet pass them on through the laying on of hands? Or is the transfer automatic in some sense? I never really understood the mechanics of the succession process to the presidency of the LDS church. I'm curious what the details are, if anyone happens to know

The way succession works is well known. The president, First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve all have all the keys necessary to run the church; all are sustained as "Apostles Seers and Revelators", by the laying on of hands.

Since Brigham Young, it has been a tradition that the longest-serving senior member of the Q of 12- who is called the "President" of the Quorum will be chosen prophet. This is seen as an opportunity for God to choose who will serve- they all tend to be old, and it would be simple for God to simply take the member of the Quorum who he does NOT want to serve. It's not the oldest- it's the one with the most seniority as an Apostle.

Theoretically the Apostles could select someone other than the senior Apostle, but it has not happened yet.

Edited November 6, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

You wrote:

Unless we know all the utterances of Jesus and the 12, we cannot say with any certainty that the church fathers were the first Christian teachers to articulate an explicit doctrine of the deification of believers.

Actually, we can say so with some measure of certainty or at least a high degree of confidence, as I shall explain below. But first, your argument here is a fallacious argument from ignorance. From the fact that we cannot know what Jesus and the apostles did not say that happens not to be recorded in the NT, it does not follow that we can know or even that we can legitimately speculate that they said certain things. For example, we cannot legitimately speculate that Jesus taught his disciples how to construct cell phones, how to speak Sanskrit, or how to levitate. Granted, we have no explicit statement from the first century telling us that he did not teach them such things, but that gives us no room to speculate legitimately or reasonably that he did.

My second point pertains especially to the following conclusion you offered:

It is just as likely they were repeating earlier, but changing, doctrine that has not survived in written form. In fact, I would lean more to that explanation than that they made it up out of whole cloth. Are you sure we possess everything that was spoken and written during the ministry of Christ and the apostles?

Since many of the church fathers from the late second century onward taught an explicit doctrine of believers becoming gods, and since they quoted from Christ and the apostles profusely, if they had been aware of statements by Christ or the apostles explicitly affirming that idea we may reasonably presume they would have quoted such statements. They don't. Indeed, they don't attribute any statements to Christ or the apostles on this or other related subjects that we don't already find in the NT. So although we cannot absolutely prove with 100 percent certainty that Christ and the apostles made no such statements, the evidence we have overwhelmingly supports the view that they didn't.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

The "roots" of deification are found in the New Testament (as all the Greek Fathers believed):

Mt. 5:28; John 10:34/Ps 82:6; Jn. 14:12, 17; Jn 17:3, 21-23; 1 John 1:16, 3:2; 1 Cor. 13:12; Rom. 8:32, 29; Phil 3:21; 2 Cor 3:18, 8:2; Rev. 3:21.

See the following studies.

Gorman, M. Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Soteriology, (Eerdmans, 2009)

Gross, Jules. The Divinization of the Christian According to the Greek Fathers, trans. Paul A. Onica. (Anaheim, Calif.: A & C Press, 2002/1938), 80-98

Keating, D. Deification and Grace, (2007), 61-72

Maloney, George, The Undreamed has Happened: God Lives Within Us, (2003).

Russell, N. The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, (2004), 79-89

Deification is not a Greek Orthodox doctrine. It is a New Testament doctrine that the Greek Orthodox have preserved (and modified).

From the fact that the patristic doctrine of deification had roots in NT teaching, it does not follow that the doctrine was itself a NT doctrine. The fact is that the patristic doctrine of deification had roots in the NT and also roots in Platonism, as Russell, for example, documents. In any case, the substance of the patristic doctrine is radically different from Joseph Smith's doctrine of exaltation, as I explained in my article.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

The Great Apostasy is not an event. It is a process. It began in the first century (it is mentioned in the NT), and continues until today.

Talk about equivocation!

Of course, the Great Apostasy according to LDS doctrine continued long after the first century, but it still had a beginning. It also had an end, as long as we are not equivocating. The Great Apostasy is usually understood to mean the period of spiritual darkness during which there was no true church on the earth, a condition that existed from around the early second century (give or take) until 1830. Of course, in LDS doctrine it is understood that non-Mormon Christianity is still apostate, but that period of no true church on the earth is supposedly over. More to the point, it was in full swing in the period when the church fathers (quoted by Peterson in his article) wrote.

You wrote:

The Great Apostasy does not imply a complete loss of all truth from Christianity. All Christian churches preserve a great deal of authentic Christian truth.

This point was acknowledged and addressed in my article.

You wrote:

At any rate, Rob is equivocating when he claims the doctrine of deification was never lost. By the 1830s it was most certainly lost to Western Christianity.

Again, you are the one equivocating. The concept of the Great Apostasy is not that doctrines were lost to parts of the church but not to other parts, but that doctrines (as well as priesthood authority, prophets and apostles, etc.) were entirely lost from the earth. Furthermore, depending on exactly what one means by deification (raising again the specter of equivocation), such a doctrine can be found in Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and other Protestant Christians. And without doubt the substance of that doctrine that had, as you called it in your other post, "roots" in the NT was found in Western Christianity in 1830 (i.e., that Christians will become immortal, like Christ, conformed to God's image, etc.). We never lost those truths.

[Rob Bowman]

juliann,

You wrote:

This was a groundbreaking article http://www.foranansw...cal_Neglect.htm by Owen and Mosser, both worthy evangelical apologists with a special interest in countering Mormonism whom we had the pleasure of interacting with. Owen eventually went Orthodox. I don't for a minute think that having to face deification doctrines didn't have something to do with that. Mr. Bowman's complete misunderstanding of the importance of this....and its duration outside of his limited theological boundaries noted by Owen and Mosser... is evident in the title of this thread.

I'm afraid you simply are making statements about me out of ignorance. I sounded a warning about LDS scholarship similar to the one in the article you cited a full decade before Carl and Paul did so, in an article I wrote for Moody Monthly in 1987. That same year I also published an article on deification that distinguished between orthodox and heretical concepts of deification. I've been ahead of that curve, not behind. Also, I have known Carl for many years and we are friends. As for Paul Owen, I haven't had much contact with him for a number of years, but last I checked he was Anglican, not Eastern Orthodox. If you have more recent information about him converting to the Orthodox Church that would be interesting to see.

[Bill Hamblin]

From the fact that the patristic doctrine of deification had roots in NT teaching, it does not follow that the doctrine was itself a NT doctrine. The fact is that the patristic doctrine of deification had roots in the NT and also roots in Platonism, as Russell, for example, documents. In any case, the substance of the patristic doctrine is radically different from Joseph Smith's doctrine of exaltation, as I explained in my article.

Of course exactly the same is true about Nicean trinitarian doctrines.

At any rate, how does the fact that GO adapted their understanding of the nature of deification to Greek philosophical categories change the fact that they believed in deification? No LDS has ever said that LDS concepts of deification precisely match GO concepts. Why do you think they should?

The earliest Christian statements about deification are in the NT. The earliest post NT statements about deification are quite vague, simply saying things like "God became man so Man might become God." All the complex theological implications of such statements are never discussed by the earliest Christians. As a matter of historical methodology, one cannot retroject later GO conceptions of deification on the earliest Christian concepts.

The NT clearly teaches deification. Read the scriptures and articles I cited. In its NT form it has nothing to do with later GO theologians. You need to stop conflating these issues.

[juliann]

juliann,

You wrote:

I'm afraid you simply are making statements about me out of ignorance. I sounded a warning about LDS scholarship similar to the one in the article you cited a full decade before Carl and Paul did so, in an article I wrote for Moody Monthly in 1987. That same year I also published an article on deification that distinguished between orthodox and heretical concepts of deification. I've been ahead of that curve, not behind. Also, I have known Carl for many years and we are friends. As for Paul Owen, I haven't had much contact with him for a number of years, but last I checked he was Anglican, not Eastern Orthodox. If you have more recent information about him converting to the Orthodox Church that would be interesting to see.

Eastern Orthodox? I'd be more careful about slinging the word "ignorance" at others if you claim to be an expert and don't understand the usage of Orthodox .....just sayin....cause that is pretty basic.

And say hi to Carl for me, it has been a long time since I saw him. And you are very correct I am completely unfamiliar with anything you may have done beyond perpetuating misinformation about Mormonism here .

And without doubt the substance of that doctrine that had, as you called it in your other post, "roots" in the NT was found in Western Christianity in 1830 (i.e., that Christians will become immortal, like Christ, conformed to God's image, etc.). We never lost those truths.

Well, you guys sure did make fun of it for a long time!

[Bill Hamblin]

Since many of the church fathers from the late second century onward taught an explicit doctrine of believers becoming gods, and since they quoted from Christ and the apostles profusely, if they had been aware of statements by Christ or the apostles explicitly affirming that idea we may reasonably presume they would have quoted such statements. They don't. Indeed, they don't attribute any statements to Christ or the apostles on this or other related subjects that we don't already find in the NT. So although we cannot absolutely prove with 100 percent certainty that Christ and the apostles made no such statements, the evidence we have overwhelmingly supports the view that they didn't.

In fact, the earliest post NT discussions of deification are founded precisely on Christ's interpretation of Psalm 82 in John 10. It was based exclusively on the teachings of Christ.

Mark D. Nispel "Christian Deification and the Early Testimonia" Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 53, No. 3. (Aug., 1999), pp. 289-304.

Carl Mosser, "The Earliest Patristic Interpretations of Psalm 82, Jewish Antecedents, and the Origin of Christian Deification," Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Vol. 56, Pt 1, April 2005, 30-74

[Bill Hamblin]

Again, you are the one equivocating. The concept of the Great Apostasy is not that doctrines were lost to parts of the church but not to other parts, but that doctrines (as well as priesthood authority, prophets and apostles, etc.) were entirely lost from the earth. Furthermore, depending on exactly what one means by deification (raising again the specter of equivocation), such a doctrine can be found in Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and other Protestant Christians. And without doubt the substance of that doctrine that had, as you called it in your other post, "roots" in the NT was found in Western Christianity in 1830 (i.e., that Christians will become immortal, like Christ, conformed to God's image, etc.). We never lost those truths.

Rob, the doctrine was lost to the vast majority of Christians. It was also modified in substance by the GO. But however that might be, an idea doesn't need to be 100% lost and completely unknown for it to be "restored." Your position is just silly.

[Bill Hamblin]

Of course, the Great Apostasy according to LDS doctrine continued long after the first century, but it still had a beginning. It also had an end, as long as we are not equivocating. The Great Apostasy is usually understood to mean the period of spiritual darkness during which there was no true church on the earth, a condition that existed from around the early second century (give or take) until 1830. Of course, in LDS doctrine it is understood that non-Mormon Christianity is still apostate, but that period of no true church on the earth is supposedly over. More to the point, it was in full swing in the period when the church fathers (quoted by Peterson in his article) wrote.

Sorry, you don't get to tell me how I understand the Great Apostasy. I can understand it any way I want to, and the fact that my understanding differs from your misunderstanding doesn't mean I'm equivocating. Stop the posturing.

Be that as it may, the Great Apostasy is a theological concept. It reflects two historical phenomena.

1- The transformation of Christian teaching and practice culminating in the loss of certain core Christian truths, and the creation of additional new non-NT doctrines. I assume you would agree that this has occurred in Christianity, since you reject the Catholic and Orthodox churches. This process is continuing today as we see in all sorts of debates within and between Christian denominations. Historically (not theologically) speaking, Christian doctrine and practice has undergone more or less constant ferment and transformation.

2- Loss of divine (or priesthood) authorization. This also, importantly, involves the cessation of revelation. This is something God decides. But it is not an event. It again is a process. Because one late second century bishop lost divine authority on a given date doesn't mean all did. It is impossible to establish who God did or did not authorize. (We also are dealing with the BOM Church by the way.) At some point--we don't know when or where--there was no one left with divinely sanctioned priesthood authority. It was probably intimately connected with the rise of priestcraft. When that priesthood authority was restored to JS, it doesn't mean that the Great Apostasy was over. It's still going on. People still falsely claim priesthood authority. Furthermore, the fact that the Great Apostasy occurred does not mean that there were no authentic Christians in the world. 1 Nephi 14:12-124 implies that the "church of the Lamb of God" were "few in number" but were "scattered upon all the face of the earth," which implies to me that one can be an authentic Christian--a member of the "church of the Lamb"--during the Great Apostasy.

Edited November 6, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Rob Bowman]

juliann,

In standard theological usage Orthodox with a capital O is the same thing as Eastern Orthodox. There is no difference. When you claimed that Paul had become Orthodox, you could not have meant that he became "orthodox" with a lower-case o because he already was that! So you do seem to be confused, or perhaps you were simply caught saying something inaccurate.

[KevinG]

juliann,

In standard theological usage Orthodox with a capital O is the same thing as Eastern Orthodox. There is no difference. When you claimed that Paul had become Orthodox, you could not have meant that he became "orthodox" with a lower-case o because he already was that! So you do seem to be confused, or perhaps you were simply caught saying something inaccurate.

So the misunderstanding is her fault because of a capitalization error...

Gotcha!

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You are knocking down straw men left and right in your posts. I never claimed that Peterson or anyone else asserted that Joseph Smith's doctrine of deification was precisely the same as that of the church fathers, let alone the Greek Orthodox Church. I did not claim that the Orthodox doctrine of deification was identical to NT doctrine or to the patristic doctrine of deification. I did not argue that an idea needs to be 100 percent lost and completely unknown in any form to be restored. I did not argue or imply that the LDS doctrine of the Great Apostasy meant that there were no true Christians on the earth during the period from ca. 100 to 1830. I didn't deny that the church fathers appealed to the NT in support of their doctrine of deification (rather, I argued that they did not appeal to statements supposedly by Jesus or the apostles not recorded in the NT, as Bernard had speculated).

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

So the misunderstanding is her fault because of a capitalization error...

No. She can spell the word either way, her statement that Paul Owen became Orthodox/orthodox after dealing with the LDS doctrine of deification is false and makes no sense.

[juliann]

Although the idea of deification in the Greek fathers had run the danger of obscuring the distinction between Creator and creature, the pressure of the controversy over Christ as creature had acted to restrain any pantheistic tendencies that may have been present in it. Now that the pressure was coming not from the trinitarian dogma, but from the mystical theories of Neoplatonism, these tendencies seemed to be asserting themselves with new vigor.

Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Christian Doctrine, Vol. 1 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1971, 345.

It might not be as cut and dry as Mr. Bowman needs it to be. BTW, Pelikan later left the Lutherans for American Orthodox (yes, Mr. Bowman, that is Eastern Orthodox)