LDS 2 Peter 1 Divine Nature

[dzheremi]

A person becomes LIKE God the Father. We don't literally become Him or replace Him. This was clarified in post #4.

Is it not the case that Mormonism teaches that its exalted people will become creators and rulers, just as God the Father is? The Gospel Principles manual I just downloaded from lds.org to get more information on this in the exact words used by the Mormon Church states: "Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation." (2009:275)

Thus the exalted Mormon will be a creator and father of 'spirit children', and be in a way, if not the same God the Father that they worship on earth, at least a God the father (to his own spirit children). And it follows that if this is the relationship of the exalted Mormon, he too would be worshiped as Mormons claim to worship God the father as his spirit children on this same earth. (The one you and I are both on right now.)

So, yes, in a way, you become 'like him' without replacing him, but that is only because in Mormon cosmology there are apparently many such 'God the fathers', so there's no need for any of them to be replacing any others. They are simply added into the mix as more and more Mormons become 'exalted', no? Hence you guys have this idea of progression to Godhood, which is even the case with the very God the Father you claim to worship (according to LDS theology, that is!), whereas all of this is completely foreign to Christian conceptions of Theosis, which are dependent upon and occur only within the strict boundaries of what God has done out of love for us, which did not and will not ever include making us 'co-creators' or 'co-rulers' with Him.

Rather, "Ye are gods" is spoken to those to whom the Word has come, as explained by the Word, Jesus Christ Himself in the context of that same chapter. Our God Jesus Christ explains (John 10:35-36): If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

In other words, if God had called those to whom the word had come 'Gods', then how much more appropriate is the one Whom God has sent into the world likewise called 'the Son of God'?

Jesus is making a point about Himself, that while by analogy we may be called this or that, by virtue of the fact that He is literally sent by God the Father and being one with Him, He (Jesus) is the Son of God.

Again, it is a deference of nature and grace. Jesus Christ is the only-begotten Son of God (by nature, or what is called by our fathers substance/essence/ousia); the rest of us are adopted at best, and only then by the power given to us by Him. (cf. John 1:12)

 

[Jane_Doe]

All non-homoousian views are heretical.

Dzheremi, if you want to discuss LDS beliefs, you need to actually discuss LDS beliefs. Arians aren't LDS so there's no point in talking about them because we both reject them.

Arianism is just appropriate because they, like you, recognized the divinity of Christ while maintaining that it was not the same divinity as the Father

Not an LDS belief.

because again they rebelled against the idea that God should come to us in the flesh.

That's them. LDS fully embrace and celebrate Christ's full divinity.

continue the Arians' denial of the one shared divinity between the Persons

Incorrect.

A scriptural reason why we do not become almighty God? "Hear, O Israel, the Lord is One", for instance. The most famous statement of monotheism in the Old Testament. Or Psalm 86:8-10: "Among the gods there is none like You, O Lord; Nor are there any works like Your works. All nations whom You have made shall come and worship before You, O Lord, and shall glorify Your name. For You are great, and do wondrous things; You alone are God." And in the New Tastment, too, we have verses such as John 5:44 which speak of "the only God".

Now these are beliefs LDS firmly embrace. They also aren't reasons we cannot become like God- join heirs with Christ that share His throne, as it says in the Bible.

St. Hippolytus is saying that while we have the example of the Logos, the God-Man Jesus Christ (which proves that God can make a man who is God), we were not created thusly. So anyone who interprets "Ye are Gods" as literally as the LDS appear to is in error. The saint does not teach against deification as a concept at all (in fact, that is dealt with in the very next sentence at the source), only this idea that men become Gods by nature. God's nature and ours are not the same. That is, in an operational sense, the very point of the incarnation: that God should bless our nature in Himself, redeeming us in the process (cf. St. Gregory Nazianzus: "That which is not assumed is not saved") and once again making it possible that we may be in true communion and union with God by grace which He gives us (and, again, not by nature).

I specifically asked for scripture, not this.

 

[KevinSim]

A scriptural reason why we do not become almighty God? "Hear, O Israel, the Lord is One", for instance. The most famous statement of monotheism in the Old Testament. Or Psalm 86:8-10: "Among the gods there is none like You, O Lord; Nor are there any works like Your works. All nations whom You have made shall come and worship before You, O Lord, and shall glorify Your name. For You are great, and do wondrous things; You alone are God." And in the New Tastment, too, we have verses such as John 5:44 which speak of "the only God".

I have never understood why traditional Christians believe this implies that humans cannot become God. Sure, these Biblical passages say there is only one God. Jesus called His Father God. Does that mean Jesus is not God? Of course not! Jesus is God and His Father is God, but that doesn't result in two Gods; there is only one God. So if Jesus can be God, and His Father can be God, and the Holy Spirit can be God, and there's still only one God, how do other people being God make it more than one God? If three can be one, why can't four be one, or five, or six, or six thousand?

 

[Jane_Doe]

Is it not the case that Mormonism teaches that its exalted people will become creators and rulers, just as God the Father is?

Well that is part of being like Him .

The Gospel Principles manual I just downloaded from lds.org to get more information on this in the exact words used by the Mormon Church states: "Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation." (2009:275)

(An aside: well done actually getting good sources and properly citing).

Note: all of the redemption of men is done through Christ and His sacrifice.

Thus the exalted Mormon will be a creator and father of 'spirit children', and be in a way, if not the same God the Father that they worship on earth, at least a God the father (to his own spirit children). And it follows that if this is the relationship of the exalted Mormon, he too would be worshiped as Mormons claim to worship God the father as his spirit children on this same earth. (The one you and I are both on right now.)

You're extrapolating here. They are reasonable extrapolations, but not God's revelations (that's important to note the difference).

So, yes, in a way, you become 'like him' without replacing him, but that is only because in Mormon cosmology there are apparently many such 'God the fathers',

You are now speculating on speculations-- a very shaky foundation. We do not have any revelation on this subject. Rest of the paragraph is speculating on speculations of speculations.

If you want something actually solid, stick with the Gospel Principles manual. Post #3 by Kevin is also pretty good. I especially recommend this essay: Becoming Like God

whereas all of this is completely foreign to Christian conceptions of Theosis, which are dependent upon and occur only within the strict boundaries of what God has done out of love for us, which did not and will not ever include making us 'co-creators' or 'co-rulers' with Him.

How do you reconcile this with the Bible, whom describes us as joint heir with Christ whom will share His throne?

Again, it is a deference of nature and grace. Jesus Christ is the only-begotten Son of God

LDS 100% agree that Christ is the only Begotten of the Father.

(by nature, or what is called by our fathers substance/essence/ousia);

For this you'll have to provide some scripture verses.

 

[dzheremi]

Dzheremi, if you want to discuss LDS beliefs, you need to actually discuss LDS beliefs. Arians aren't LDS so there's no point in talking about them because we both reject them.

I never said Arians are LDS. I said LDS are like the Arians in affirming the divinity of Jesus Christ but specifically denying that the persons of the Trinity are homoousios.

Not an LDS belief.

Jane, do I need to remind you what you yourself wrote when we first talked about Christian and LDS beliefs concerning the Holy Trinity? I don't mean to embarrass you or anything, but what you are claiming now is not consistent with what you claimed then.

In post #113 of the thread entitled "Mormonism is an enemy of the Cross and therefore not Christian", which you wrote on June 2, 2016, you quoted a portion of an earlier post by me in which I wrote "you guys are apparently unwilling to confess that the three persons are homoousios", and you replied, and I quote, "Correct: we reject this non-Biblical idea." Here is a link to the post in question, so that you and anyone else may read it and see that I am not putting words in your mouth.

Now you are saying that the rejection of the homoousian reality of the Holy Trinity is "not an LDS belief".

Well, it was last year, according to you when you said that the idea that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of one and the same divinity was a "non-Biblical idea". What a difference 8 months makes!

That's them. LDS fully embrace and celebrate Christ's full divinity.

But you claim that it is a different substance than that of the Father and the Holy Spirit (or you don't and you and Peter 1000 and the other Mormons who posted in that other thread were all wrong; either way, it's hard to seriously fault your interlocutor for not being able to keep this straight when you yourselves are not consistent from one post to the next).

Incorrect.

No way. If you do not confess that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are homoousios then you cannot but be denying their shared essence/substance/ousia, which is exactly what the Arians did.

I specifically asked for scripture, not this.

I gave several scriptural citations in the portion of the post that you have claimed in your latest reply is full of things that LDS believe (which I excised in this reply, because I'm not interested in the fact that you claim that the LDS follow and believe those; of course that is the claim, as you are yourself LDS). This subsequent bit about St. Hippolytus is in reply to the next portion of your previous reply, where you wrote "I'm failing to see how this applies to the question. Are you saying because something is not X now it can never be X? I could think of a bunch of counter-examples to that."

 

[Jane_Doe]

Jane, do I need to remind you what you yourself wrote when we first talked about Christian and LDS beliefs concerning the Holy Trinity? I don't mean to embarrass you or anything, but what you are claiming now is not consistent with what you claimed then.

In post #113 of the thread entitled "Mormonism is an enemy of the Cross and therefore not Christian", which you wrote on June 2, 2016, you quoted a portion of an earlier post by me in which I wrote "you guys are apparently unwilling to confess that the three persons are homoousios", and you replied, and I quote, "Correct: we reject this non-Biblical idea." Here is a link to the post in question, so that you and anyone else may read it and see that I am not putting words in your mouth.

Well, it was last year, according to you when you said that the idea that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of one and the same divinity was a "non-Biblical idea". What a difference 8 months makes!

Both are true. LDS embrace the fact and celebrate the divinity of Christ, which is the same divinity of the Father. We reject the idea that this is via homoousios because the Bible says nothing it or essence/substance/ousia of God. They are one through unity.

No way. If you do not confess that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are homoousios then you cannot but be denying their shared essence/substance/ousia, which is exactly what the Arians did.

Again, there are more belief systems out there than Arians and homoousios.

I gave several scriptural citations in the portion of the post that you have claimed in your latest reply is full of things that LDS believe (which I excised in this reply, because I'm not interested in the fact that you claim that the LDS follow and believe those; of course that is the claim, as you are yourself LDS). This subsequent bit about St. Hippolytus is in reply to the next portion of your previous reply, where you wrote "I'm failing to see how this applies to the question. Are you saying because something is not X now it can never be X? I could think of a bunch of counter-examples to that."

Ah, thank you for the clarification.

 

[KevinSim]

I never said Arians are LDS. I said LDS are like the Arians in affirming the divinity of Jesus Christ but specifically denying that the persons of the Trinity are homoousios.

Okay, I'm pleading ignorance here. What does homoousios mean? Is that a Greek word, or an Aramaic word?

 

[BigDaddy4]

Man, Potential to Become like Heavenly Father
See also Father ; Immortality ; Perfection

• man is become as one of us: Gen. 3:22
• be holy: for I … am holy: Lev. 19:2 . ( 1 Pet. 1:16 . )
• thou hast made him a little lower than the angels: Ps. 8:5 .
• madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands: Ps. 8:6 .
• Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High: Ps. 82:6 .

• Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father: Matt. 5:48 .
• spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have: Luke 24:39 .
• Is it not written in your law … Ye are gods: John 10:34 . ( Ps. 82 )
• we are the offspring of God: Acts 17:29 .
• heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ: Rom. 8:17 .
• changed into the same image from glory to glory: 2 Cor. 3:18 .
• if a son, then an heir of God through Christ: Gal. 4:7 .
• Till we all come … unto a perfect man: Eph. 4:13 .
• be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live: Heb. 12:9 .
• when he shall appear, we shall be like him: 1 Jn. 3:2 .
• him that overcometh will … sit with me in my throne: Rev. 3:21 .

Excellent work. You were able to quote your own church's out of context words. The creation does not become a creator (or Creator), nor does a sheep become a shepard.

 

[dzheremi]

Both are true. LDS embrace the fact and celebrate the divinity of Christ, which is the same divinity of the Father. We reject the idea that this is via homoousios because the Bible says nothing it or essence/substance/ousia of God.

This makes no sense. First you say that the Divinity is the same and then you say that it is not the same because the Bible doesn't say that. Which is it? Do you reject it or affirm it? Because you rejected it back in June when you said it was an un-Biblical idea, and now you're saying that you're embracing it but also rejecting it.

Please understand the words that are being used here. By saying that you affirm that they are of the same substance/essence, you are saying that they are homoousios, whereas if you reject the statement that they are homousios, you cannot therefore say that they are of one and the same divinity, since that's what homoousios means (homo- 'one, the same' + -ousia 'substance/essence').

They are one through unity.

Yes, but it is a unity of purpose only for the LDS, correct? Not of substance/essence/ousia? That's what you (and other Mormon posters) have told me in the past, at any rate.

Again, there are more belief systems out there than Arians and homoousios.

You are correct in the sense that these are not the only two positions. For instance, the homoiousians (those who preached that Christ was of a 'similar' substance to the Father) are sometimes called 'semi-Arians' due to this position, as it is not quite the same as that of the Arians. But on this particular question, unless or until I receive clarification from you that the LDS do doctrinally affirm that the Persons of the Trinity are homoousious (which, again, would directly contradict what you told me earlier, and also what Peter1000 wrote in that same thread, and maybe other LDS who I am not remembering right now), I am going to continue to believe that the LDS view is closest to Arianism -- or at least much closer to it than to the Orthodox/Nicene position which explicitly affirms the shared divinity of the Persons. Because that is what you told me, and I believed you then, and have yet to see any reason to stop believing that this is the case. (I would most welcome correction on this point, however, as it would possibly bring Mormonism that much closer to Christianity, depending on the exact details.)

Ah, thank you for the clarification.

You're welcome. I look forward to your clarification of your posts in turn.

 

[dzheremi]

Okay, I'm pleading ignorance here. What does homoousios mean? Is that a Greek word, or an Aramaic word?

It is a Greek word, meaning 'of the same substance/essence' (the word ousia can be defined as both 'substance' and 'essence' in English; this is why the equivalent word in the Nicene Creed as prayed in the Roman Catholic Church is 'consubstantial').

The early Church used this word to describe the relation of the Persons of the Holy Trinity so that people would understand that the Three Persons are all of the same and equal divinity -- i.e., the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and none is differently or more or less so than any other.

 

[Jane_Doe]

This makes no sense. First you say that the Divinity is the same and then you say that it is not the same because the Bible doesn't say that. Which is it? Do you reject it or affirm it? Because you rejected it back in June when you said it was an un-Biblical idea, and now you're saying that you're embracing it but also rejecting it.

Christ is not divine because of any substance He's made of, nor does the Bible suggest that (hence a non-Biblical idea). Same with the Father.

Yes, but it is a unity of purpose only for the LDS, correct? Not of substance/essence/ousia? That's what you (and other Mormon posters) have told me in the past, at any rate.

Correct.
There's no mention of God's substance/essence/ousia in scripture. Likewise no mention of it in LDS theology.

I am going to continue to believe that the LDS view is closest to Arianism

Dude, one of the central tenets of Arianism is that there was a time Christ didn't exist-- which LDS don't believe at all. In fact, there's very little (if anything) about Arianism LDS do believe, as discussed in post 22.

-- or at least much closer to it than to the Orthodox/Nicene position which explicitly affirms the shared divinity of the Persons.

LDS *do* believe in shared divinity. We do not believe in shared substance.

Because that is what you told me, and I believed you then, and have yet to see any reason to stop believing that this is the case. (I would most welcome correction on this point, however, as it would possibly bring Mormonism that much closer to Christianity, depending on the exact details.)

Hopefully the above can clarify things.

 

[dzheremi]

Again, Jane_Doe, your position is inconsistent and untenable. If you believe that they are of the same divinity, then you must believe that they are homoousios. How on earth can they be of the same divinity and yet unlike in their substance/essence, when the essence that they share is that of the divinity itself? The fathers condemn any such notion, because it is utterly foreign to the faith as received in every place from the apostles and disciples themselves, and destroys the oneness of God. Remember St. Athanasius the Apostolic's letter to Serapion, discussed at length in the other thread? Here again is the relevant section (with emphasis added):

But if there is such co-ordination and unity within the holy Trinity, who can separate either the Son from the Father, or the Spirit from the Son or from the Father himself? Who would be so audacious as to say that the Trinity is unlike itself and diverse in nature, or that the Son is in essence foreign from the Father, or the Spirit alien from the Son?

 

[Jane_Doe]

Again, Jane_Doe, your position is inconsistent and untenable. If you believe that they are of the same divinity, then you must believe that they are homoousios.

Why?

How on earth can they be of the same divinity and yet unlike in their substance/essence, when the essence that they share is that of the divinity itself?

Why must they share a substance at all? Why must we even bring up the subject of substance when the Bible does not?

The fathers condemn any such notion, because it is utterly foreign to the faith as received in every place from the apostles and disciples themselves, and destroys the oneness of God.

Why do you say that? The apostles didn't teach about God's substance. It's not in the Bible. Why would you say that God is destroyed by not embracing this idea foreign to God's words?

 

[dzheremi]

Why?

Because that's what homoousios means.

Why must they share a substance at all?

Again, because that's what homoousios means: same (homo-) substance/essence (ousia).

Why must we even bring up the subject of substance when the Bible does not?

Because heretics who taught against the faith which is the truth of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit pushed things to such a degree that it was necessary to call them to account and reiterate via the Creed that this (the Creed) and not that (what they were teaching instead) will be the boundary between the Christian faith and anything else.

Why do you say that? The apostles didn't teach about God's substance. It's not in the Bible. Why would you say that God is destroyed by not embracing this idea foreign to God's words?

It is by no means foreign to God's words. I have in the recent past presented you with the scriptural basis of the Creed from three different websites, each of different confessional allegiances (so this is most emphatically not just an 'Orthodox' viewpoint; it is the Christian faith). As I recall, Phoebe Ann shortly afterwards did the same from this very website's Statement of Faith. There is no means by which anyone can claim that it is absent from the scriptures, unless they are of such a type that they would need this exact wording to be found in the scriptures (in which case, we could very well ask you where any of Mormonism's distinctive doctrines come from, as they are likewise absent from the scriptures in such explicit terms, to be supported only by Mormon-specific readings of the same).

With regard to the unity of God, you and I have surely discussed this before, too, as I remember very clearly writing that Mormonism's trinity cannot be the Holy Trinity, as there is nothing that may be said of the persons in it that cannot be said of any three persons (or any number of persons) that are not in it. Any of the prophets used by God also acted in unity of purpose with Him -- how could they not have, for they did His will? So why then is the Mormon trinity not God the Father, David the Prophet and King, and...I don't know...St. George of Lydda? Or St. John the Baptist, Abraham the Patriarch, and the Holy Spirit? Any such combination involves three persons who act in unity, but it says nothing of their divinity, so why would three (or more) persons who have such a relation be 'God' in the first place?

That's the thing: the three persons must have the same divinity, because to be God they must be divine (because being divine is what -- in terms of ousia -- separates God from not-God). And it must be the same divinity, because you cannot have a God Who is alien to Himself in His own essence (so being of the same substance/essence is one makes the Triune God one, rather than more than one in accordance with whatever diversity of substances/essences would be found in the persons if they are not of the same ousia).

 

[robert skynner]

Mormons are still misinterpreting the early church fathers who spoke of becoming one with God. They never taught that there will be multiple Gods.

I prefer to rely on scripture:
2 Peter 1
3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: 4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

2nd Peter 1:4: "partakers of the divine nature," refers to God's communicable attributes (nature) such as his love, his mercy, his being long suffering. This verse is not implying that we too jointly with God, become partakers of his incommunicable attributes such as his omnipresence, or his omnipotence etc.

 

[robert skynner]

That's how it works with God the Father, Jesus His Son, and Holy Spirit; and that's how it will work with us. Jesus and the Spirit are completely one with God the Father, and therefore in a very real sense they are God the Father. Similarly, when we become one with the three of them, we will also in a very real sense be God the Father.

Oh dear, you're advocating modalism, which is the idea that Jesus Christ is God the Father. Also we are not and cannot become God the Father (or Jesus), we are one with the Father and Son (John 17:21), to be one with somebody, must logically imply that you are also other than them, i.e. another person, as it is a logical impossibility to be one with yourself. As for 2nd Peter 1:4, we do partake of God's communicable nature, that is his love, his mercy. his kindness etc. But we do not and cannot partake in his eternal divine characteristics (called his incommunicable attributes) such as his omnipresence, his omnipotence and his omniscience etc.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Because that's what homoousios means.



Again, because that's what homoousios means: same (homo-) substance/essence (ousia).

I'm aware of the definition. That doesn't address my questions.

Because heretics who taught against the faith which is the truth of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit pushed things to such a degree that it was necessary to call them to account and reiterate via the Creed that this (the Creed) and not that (what they were teaching instead) will be the boundary between the Christian faith and anything else.

So because some heretics exist you feel the need to erect talk about a subject foreign to the Bible and use that as a boundary? That's make zero sense.

It is by no means foreign to God's words. I have in the recent past presented you with the scriptural basis of the Creed from three different websites, each of different confessional allegiances (so this is most emphatically not just an 'Orthodox' viewpoint; it is the Christian faith). As I recall, Phoebe Ann shortly afterwards did the same from this very website's Statement of Faith.

Creeds =/= God's words.

There is no means by which anyone can claim that it is absent from the scriptures, unless they are of such a type that they would need this exact wording to be found in the scriptures

"Exact wording"? The entire subject isn't in scripture!

With regard to the unity of God, you and I have surely discussed this before, too, as I remember very clearly writing that Mormonism's trinity cannot be the Holy Trinity, as there is nothing that may be said of the persons in it that cannot be said of any three persons (or any number of persons) that are not in it.

I am not sure what you are saying here.

So why then is the Mormon trinity not God the Father, David the Prophet and King, and...I don't know...St. George of Lydda? Or St. John the Baptist, Abraham the Patriarch, and the Holy Spirit?

Because David, George, John, Abraham, etc were all sinners who rebelled against God and spat on His name! Yes, they learned, repented, and change their ways. But on this Earth they were by no means 100% unified with God. The only person who walked this Earth in perfect harmony with the Father was Christ. The Father knew this, and Christ was chosen before this world was made to be the Son of God- cause He's always walked with the Father perfectly. Likewise the Spirit.

That's the thing: the three persons must have the same divinity, because to be God they must be divine (because being divine is what -- in terms of ousia -- separates God from not-God).

You're acting like divinity = ousia. Could you give me a scriptural reference for that belief?

And it must be the same divinity, because you cannot have a God Who is alien to Himself in His own essence (so being of the same substance/essence is one makes the Triune God one, rather than more than one in accordance with whatever diversity of substances/essences would be found in the persons if they are not of the same ousia).

Again, could I have scriptural references for all this?

 

[dzheremi]

Yes, Jane, I am acting like ousia = divinity, because, as I explicitly wrote in post #32, the substance/essence (ousia) which is shared by all three Persons of the Holy Trinity is divinity. That's the substance/essence we're talking about when we say that they are homoousios/consubstantial (it is possible to use this term ousia in other contexts, as the Gnostics originally did before the Christians, but in that case we are no longer talking about the Holy Trinity in particular, so it is outside of the bounds of the present conversation). Hence you cannot claim to believe that they share the same divinity without affirming that they are homoousios, because to say that they are homoousios means that they share the same divinity. That's what that means.

You claim to understand the meaning of the word homoousios in your most recent reply, but writing "You're acting like divinity = ousia" makes it clear that you do not. Of course that is what I am saying! That's all I've ever been saying, because that's all it means in the context of traditional Christian theological discussion, dating back to its Nicene definition by our father St. Athanasius the Apostolic in the Creed. homoousios = same substance/essence = same divinity.

If you remember, it was one of your fellow congregants, Peter1000, who attempted to make it about other things (physical matter, space/dimension, etc.), and I had to repeat over and over that this is not what we are talking about when we use this term. Perhaps there is something in Mormonism that makes it difficult for Mormon believers to wrap their heads around this meaning, but nonetheless it remains what it is, in accordance with the 318 fathers assembled at Nicaea, the 150 at Constantinople, the 200 at Ephesus, and all Christian bishops and other faithful likewise.

 

[Rescued One]

2nd Peter 1:4: "partakers of the divine nature," refers to God's communicable attributes (nature) such as his love, his mercy, his being long suffering. This verse is not implying that we too jointly with God, become partakers of his incommunicable attributes such as his omnipresence, or his omnipotence etc.

I'm aware of that. Others who are reading this might not be.

 

[Jane_Doe]

2nd Peter 1:4: "partakers of the divine nature," refers to God's communicable attributes (nature) such as his love, his mercy, his being long suffering. This verse is not implying that we too jointly with God, become partakers of his incommunicable attributes such as his omnipresence, or his omnipotence etc.

Says who?

Oh dear, you're advocating modalism, which is the idea that Jesus Christ is God the Father.

No, that is firmly against LDS beliefs.

Also we are not and cannot become God the Father (or Jesus), we are one with the Father and Son (John 17:21), to be one with somebody, must logically imply that you are also other than them, i.e. another person, as it is a logical impossibility to be one with yourself.