Seamaster -My young friend, you are in a state of denial but that is OK for someday you will learn better. I think you need to study Origen's writings where Origen acknowledged that the doctrine of the premortal existence had become obscure by the beginning of the third century: "what existed before this world, or what will exist after it, has not become certainly known to the many, for there is no clear statement regarding it in the teaching of the Church." Nonetheless, Origen believed there was a premortal realm, not only for Christ, but for all mortals. He understood that each of us brings to mortality those traits we developed in that premortal sphere. He suspected the reason that some people were more receptive to good and other to evil had to do with events "older than the bodily birth of the individual." He cited as the basis for his belief in a premortal existence the leaping of John the Baptist in his mother's womb at the salutation of Mary, and the Lord's pronouncement that he knew Jeremiah and ordained him a prophet before he was born. Origen then gave the following opinion as to why people were born with certain dispositions:

"It appears to me, to give no other answer, so as to show that no shadow of injustice rests upon the divine government, than by holding that there were certain causes of prior existence, in consequence of which the souls, before their birth in the body, contracted a certain amount of guilt in their sensitive nature, or in their movements, on account of which they have been judged worthy by Divine Providence of being placed in this condition. For a soul is always in possession of free-will, s well when it is in the body as when it is without it; and freedom of will is always directed either to good or evil ... And it is probable that these movements furnish grounds for merit even before they do anything in the world; so that on account of these merits or grounds they are, immediately on their birth, and even before it, so to speak, asserted by Divine Providence for the endurance of good or evil."

Then he added: "We must suppose that there sometimes existed certain causes anterior to bodily birth.

Origen must have felt strongly about the reality of a premortal existence for man, because he further wrote, "He (God) created all whom He made equal and alike," Certainly Origen was not referring to the physical creation, because all mortals are not equal or alike at birth.) Origen further explained that God sent various vessels (or souls) to the earth - some were like gold or silver, to be honored, others were like wood or clay, to be dishonored, based on their actions in the premortal life. As a result, Origen concluded that God is just because everyone is born "according to his merits; nor will the happiness or unhappiness of each one's birth, or whatever the condition that falls to his lot, be deemed accidental." Why? Because his status in this life will in part be a reflection of his premortal choices. With the foregoing understanding, Origen reasoned that Jacob was honored above Esau due "to the deserts of his previous life."

Seamaster, are you just going to pretend that Origen never wrote these things? I will give you the scriptures later that give wonderful support to a pre-mortal existence. It takes the spirit of revelation (that only Joseph had at the time) to be able to connect these dots.



[This message has been edited by diamond4 (edited 3/3/2009 11:37a).]

Diamond4,

Can you please seperate the actual quotes from Origen from the text you are copying? Some of what you have in quotes and bolded is obviously commentary and not what Origen wrote.

On your next post, only copy what Origen actually wrote, in context and cite the work.

If you are indeed quoting Origen (and with you, one always has to doubt), then you misunderstand him. He is basically talking about sin in the womb.

[This message has been edited by Fightin TX Aggie (edited 3/2/2009 5:13p).]

quote:

---

Matt - that was a cut and paste and I made that clear from the way I posted it, for that was from the article that I included the link to. My responses on the other hand were all hand typed.

---

The point is that you cut and pasted an article that turned out to be false and misleading.

Are you willing to admit that the mormontimes which you so religously read is in fact printing an article that is factually inaccurate and cannot be trusted?

You wont, but this is just another example to add to the list.

This is amazing guys...

Here is the LDS source that Diamond4 is getting his stuff on Origen from...its FAIRLDS.

Read the section on 'historical precedent.' Note that the author cites Origen but he does not really cite Origen. There is only one actual quote from Origen and he is quoting a book that was compiled by Hugh Nibley (giant Mormon guy) and the work that Hugh Nibley cites isn't an extant work of Origen but rather yet another compilation.

Amazing.

Knot heads like diamond eat this stuff up. Truth be told, it might be confusing enough to fool the unwary/uneducated.

Just a couple of comments:

First, sloppy citations and attributions are just that -- sloppy. Heaven knows that more than a few LDS writers in their zeal to find concordance with "early church" doctrines have, at times, abused the writings of the Early Church Fathers and have "read in" doctrines which might look similar but aren't the same as LDS doctrines. Sometimes things have been taken out of context or have been taken from questionable sourcing (as has been mentioned). This is poor form. At the same time, I hope the non-LDS here would realize that, at times, the same thing happens in reverse where LDS writings are taken out of context or taken to mean things that they do not etc.

quote:

---

Google "Augustine" + "Premortal Existence."

You will find dozens of statements from Mormon sources...

---

That is likely because the term "premortal existence" is fairly specific to LDS paralance. The closest reference I can locate for what is being attributed about Augustine comes from De Libero Arbitrio book III, xxi,59 where Augustine is contemplating the origin of the soul and its bearing on the faculties of free will. Basically Augustine appears to posit four possibilities for the origin of the soul and he does not endorse a particular theory. He writes:

"Of the four opinions about the soul -- whether it comes to be from the seed, or new souls come to be in each of those who are born, or whether souls that already exist somewhere are either divinely sent, or fall of their own will, in to the bodies of those who are born -- none should be rashly affirmed."

This is cited in the book "Descartes and Augustine" p182 2002 Stephen Philip Menn which can be found online at google books. So, it doesn't look like anyone can claim that Augustine believed in a premortal existence, but in a certain sense, he wasn't opposed to the idea.

I have no dog in this argument. I just thought some would find it interesting.

Also... Terryl Givens is a pretty stand up guy. I have a hard time believing he would make up something like this. My guess is that MormonTimes writer "Molly Farmer" is probably either misunderstanding him or misquoting him.

[This message has been edited by groove (edited 3/2/2009 8:23p).]

quote:

---

Basically Augustine appears to posit four possibilities for the origin of the soul and he does not endorse a particular theory.

---

EXACTLY. This is why its so wrong that Mormon Times acts as if he 'taught premortal existence.'

Seamaster - I know very well how to cut and paste. The problem is that much of the information that I share with you all is not accessible that way. If it were, I would do it in a heart beat.

Petro - I was focused on Origen who is consider the Father of Christian theology. He lived closer to the time of the Apostolic Fathers and was able to observe more closely when the perversion of doctrines as well as some being totally ignored was in full swing.

quote:

---

He lived closer to the time of the Apostolic Fathers and was able to observe more closely when the perversion of doctrines as well as some being totally ignored was in full swing.

---

I'll try one more time. Please quote just the Origen statement you are talking about. I want the whole thing and in context. I also want the citation.

diamond4, you should read what groove posted. He is intelligent, and his posts are rational. Also, he actually reads and responds to what others have to say. You could learn a great deal from groove.

[This message has been edited by Fightin TX Aggie (edited 3/3/2009 7:13a).]

quote:

---

you should read what groove posted. He is intelligent, and his posts are rational. Also, he actually reads and responds to what others have to say. You could learn a great deal from groove.

---

Didnt you know...groove doesnt pray hard enough to understand what Bob does.

quote:

---

Petro - I was focused on Origen who is consider the Father of Christian theology.

---

And yet again, Diamond tries to pretend that he didn't make any claims with regards to St. Augustine.

Groove found a pretty good source for the St. Augustine issue. Are you willing Diamond to admit that St. Augustine DIDN'T teach pre-mortal existence? If not, then give us the source that indicates otherwise. I'm not sure that you have the ethical capability to do either however.

OK...*we* know that Augustine did not teach the premortal existence of the soul regardless of what Mormon Times and Diamond4 have claimed.

I am interested in Origen now. Hopefully Diamond4 can quote just the Origen that he is citing and leave out all of the commentary intertwined with the Origen passage. Something tells me that he cannot or will not.

Diamond4, are you going to prove that Origen taught the premortal existence of souls? The 'quote' you provided above is mostly commentary from an LDS source. I just want to see Origen's words along with the citation so that we can all read the entire context. In your last comment about Origen where you said, “You will learn soon enough young friend…”, it is impossible to discern Origen’s words from the commentators words.

* We refers to reasonable people including the reasonable LDS faithful.

Diamond4.

This Study on Origen is about as comprehensive as you can find. In addition to discussion about pre-existence of souls you will see that Origen was a Trinitarian and in almost every other way an orthodox Christian.

It should be noted that some confusion and controversy surrounds his writings. He himself declared that some things that are not his were introduced into his writings to disfigure his personality.

Did Origen hold to a belief in the pre-existence of souls? Maybe he did. However, this is not evidence that the Church taught the pre-existence of souls. Did Origen teach countless doctrines that are completely contrary to LDS teaching? Absolutely. Therefore, it is interesting that you give Origen credit and say "he was closer to the apostles" but you ignore most of what he wrote because it does not reflect well upon LDS theology. Further, there are many church fathers even before Origen who taught no such doctrine and who held to Trintarian/Nicean views of orthodoxy. If you are concerned with having an authentic apostolic faith perhaps you should read them and not just cherry pick the one item that looks LDS from the volumes of patristic witness that we have.

Maybe we should create a table of Origen’s teaching on every theological topic and see if at the end of the day the table reflects something closer to a Catholic orthodoxy or a Mormon orthodoxy. If it was revealed that he was more Catholic than LDS by a long shot would you convert to the Catholic Church?


[This message has been edited by Seamaster (edited 3/3/2009 9:15a).]

Seamaster - I have give you the quotes by Origen as they are found in the ante-Nicene Fathers. I did not get them by the way from F.A.I.R. You might want to reread what I said earlier about Origen and the status of the belief and understanding of the premortal existence. "I think you need to study Origen's writings where Origen acknowledged that the doctrine of the premortal existence had become obscure by the beginning of the third century: "what existed before this world, or what will exist after it, has not become certainly known to the many, for there is no clear statement regarding it in the teaching of the Church."

I don't think you can appreciate how much can change and be lost in a couple of hundred years. Look at our nation and society. But Origen did believe in the premortal existence of man and you know it. The purpose of showing you this doctrine is that it was not original with the Prophet Joseph. He had no access to the ante-Nicene Fathers and it sure was not taught by any of the other churches. Join the Church because Origen believed in "one" of the true doctrines of the fullness of the Gospel? Not hardly! But for Joseph to teach this and many other doctrines that were supported by one or other of the apostolic fathers and early Christian writers and a distinct picture emerges. Remember, without the apostles and the revelation that accompanies them, all of these men were left to their own understanding and what knowledge they could accumulate. You, on the other hand, can not bring yourself to admit the picture that emerges as these doctrinal bits and peices are verified, for it will require a seismic change in you and what you would have to do!

quote:

---

I don't think you can appreciate how much can change and be lost in a couple of hundred years.

---

Back to the usual cop out by you bob. If theres no record, "it just hasn't been found yet."

Until you can provide proof that Christians as a whole taught this, it is just mormon lies.

First off, bringing up Joseph Smith is an entirely different subject than what the early church itself taught.

Thanks to the Origenists, and the never ending stream of heresy they brought up over time, the Church finally officially rejected it in the Second Council of Constantinople. If memory serves me right, we lost some of Origen's works as a result -- or at the very least some later translations may have excluded comments that he made or adjusted them.

Some of it may be hard to tell just what Origen himself believed because of what we lost, but I think most scholars tend to agree he had some kind of view on man being pre-existent, such that the Orginenists drew some of thier support on. I think you can read his De Prinicipiis and come to the conclusion he believed in the pre-existence of human souls, based on his dialectal of opposition when he considered God's omnipotence -- and something else over which God needs to be omnipotent over. Origen seems to map out that man had a beginning, but not a temporal one, and was somehow there in the "beginning" but at the same time I think Origen would deny that man was in any way eternal in the same way God is.

The soul only obtains a material body in Origen's thought after the fall, and the material creation of God is a stepping stone for man after the fall, so that man's soul has a chance to return back to God.

At any rate, the underlying problem with the OP here is that Origen drew his influence for these view on the doctrine of pre-existence from Platonic philosphy, and not from the Bible or any other authoratitive source of Tradition in the early Church. Origen (if it is in fact true he really believed this) and the later Origenists are rogue on this subject without question.

[This message has been edited by Cyprian (edited 3/3/2009 12:14p).]

Diamond4...re-read my last post. I am not going to repeat myself.

agmatt -There are just bits and pieces of Christ's original gospel teachings that have survived over the centuries. Some have more evidence than others. But the important thing to understand is that Joseph, unlike what people have thought, introduced no new gospel doctrines. They were supported by scripture that those who had no revelation could not piece together; by apostolic fathers and/or the early Christian writers. My favorite doctrine that is amply supported by these men as well as the scriptures is the deification of man! By the way, when we teach the Restored Gospel to investigators, we do not quote the apostolic fathers or early Christian writers. They are inconsequential to the revelations that Joseph received, including the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon, just on its own, has tremendous converting power!

Seamaster - are you denying the quotes that I have given regarding Origen's thoughts on our premortal existence? Why don't you go to where I have referenced them and read them for yourself? If they had not been taught taught for centuries, your church would have had no reason to see fit to ban them. I find it so amusing that the person who is considered by so many as the Father of Christian Theology is being trashed by you and your church.

Diamond4,

Read my comment posted at 9:15a, 03/03/09.

What did I say about Origen's teaching in that comment?

All of this coming from you is just laughable. Think about it. You reject 99% of everything Origen taught but that doesn't matter to you...and then you ignore some whoppers that your 'prophets' taught such as the Adam/God doctrine.

Let me ask you a question...what motivates you? Do you think that your efforts here on TexAgs where you are so anachronistic in your reading of church history is helping the LDS cause?

Lastly, Origen is not a doctor of the church and he is not the 'father of theology.' He is an important figure from the 2nd century but no more important than any other.


[This message has been edited by Seamaster (edited 3/3/2009 1:33p).]

quote:

---

But Origen did believe in the premortal existence of man and you know it.

---

No, as a matter of fact, the only real quote you have supplied from Origen shows some sort of belief that men could sin in utero.

quote:

---

[Joseph] had no access to the ante-Nicene Fathers and it sure was not taught by any of the other churches.

---

Wrong again. All Joseph did was sit around and talk religion. Cowdrey and others in the "burnt over district" would surely be deep into such ideas.

You are clueless. My participation in this discussion is over. Your ignorance of the subject has been thoroughly exposed, your duplicity is evident and any more discussion is pointless. You don't even read what YOU post much less what others post.

quote:

---

But the important thing to understand is that Joseph, unlike what people have thought, introduced no new gospel doctrines.

---

This is incorrect, though it does fall in line with your normal line of thinking which is incorrect.

Joseph introduced a new gospel and then it took find an obscure quote 1 time to validate it. It doesnt matter that you cannot seem to provide more then that.

There is no doubt that a lot of church leader from that time were questioning/debating different doctrine. I think to not question them is ignorance.

But what you have failed at and continually fail at is to provide any document that shows the early Church TAUGHT the doctrine. Until you provide that, you continue to spread lies

Matt - Origen clearly taught it and explained that the understanding of the doctrine had become obscured which makes perfect sense. The "other Gospel" that Paul had warned about began to take shape even while the apostles were being murdered and they were getting writer's cramp from writing all of their epistles to correct false and perverted doctrines.

Let's mention one of the most controversial doctrines which is the deification of man. Check out what these men had to say. First Jesus himself.

At one point the Savior was about to be stoned by the Jews for blasphemy. He reminded them of his good works and then asked, "For which of those works do ye stone me?" They replied that they were not stoning him for his good works, but "because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." Ironically, it is exactly the same argument made by detractors of today - the Savior was accused of being a "God maker." To this he readily acknowledged that he was, and declared that they should believe likewise: "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are Gods? " (John 10:32-34). In other words he said, not only am I god, but all of you are potential gods. He was referring to his OT declaration, with which the Jews should have been familiar: "I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High" (Psalms 82:6). The Savior was merely reaffirming a gospel teaching that all men were children of God and thus might become like him. Paul understood this principle, for when speaking to the men of Athens, he said, "Certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his off spring" (Acts 17:28)

Consider what King David said for knowing that men might become partakers of the divine nature, David spoke of the multiplicity of Gods; "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the "gods" (psalm 82:1). Later he wrote, "Before the gods will I sing praise unto thee" (Psalm 138:1).

Nonetheless, some contend that other scriptures refer to only "one God", and, therefore, man cannot become a god - otherwise he would be in violation of such scriptures. For example, they quote Paul, who taught, "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom all things ... And one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him" (1 Cor. 8:6) The foregoing scripture, however, does not say there is an absence of multiple gods, but rather suggests that their is a "hierarchy" of gods, and thus there exists only one God to whom we are accountable.

Now these are scriptures for you to ponder over. But before I give you what the early Christian writers had to say about it, let me give you what one of your Catholic priest had to say about the subject. He eventually joined the LDS Church which meant he gave up his livelihood. It should be of interest to you that Jordan Vajda O.P. in 1998, while a Roman Catholic priest, submitted his master's thesis to the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California. Entitled "'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization." He had come to a similar conclusion as the early Christian writers while submitting this thesis. He wrote the following: "The historic Christian doctrine of salvation - theosis, meaning, human divinization (becoming like God) - for too long has been forgotten by too many Christians, despite the fact that this teaching is a part of the common inheritance - first millennium Christianity."

In his first chapter, Vajda writes, "Members of the LDS Church will discover unmistakable evidence that their fundamental belief about human salvation and potential is not unique nor a Mormon invention. Latin Catholics and Protestants will learn of a doctrine of salvation that, while relatively foreign to their ears, is nevertheless part of the heritage of the undivided Catholic Church of the first millennium. Members of Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches will discover on the American continent an amazing parallel to their own belief that salvation in Christ involves our becoming 'partakers of the divine nature.'

I will give you later the early Christian writer's documented statements on the subject. As I said, none of the doctrines that Joseph reintroduced were his.

[This message has been edited by diamond4 (edited 3/3/2009 5:58p).]

Diamond4 are you not able to respond to this?

quote:

---

Did Origen hold to a belief in the pre-existence of souls? Maybe he did. However, this is not evidence that the Church taught the pre-existence of souls. Did Origen teach countless doctrines that are completely contrary to LDS teaching? Absolutely. Therefore, it is interesting that you give Origen credit and say "he was closer to the apostles" but you ignore most of what he wrote because it does not reflect well upon LDS theology. Further, there are many church fathers even before Origen who taught no such doctrine and who held to Trintarian/Nicean views of orthodoxy. If you are concerned with having an authentic apostolic faith perhaps you should read them and not just cherry pick the one sentence (literally) that looks LDS from the volumes of patristic witness that we have.

Maybe we should create a table of Origen’s teaching on every theological topic and see if at the end of the day the table reflects something closer to a Catholic orthodoxy or a Mormon orthodoxy. If it was revealed that he was more Catholic than LDS by a long shot would you convert to the Catholic Church?

---

If you weren't a real person this would be funny. Your last post needs to be put on a plaque and memorialized as vintage
IMBGenesisDiamond4.



[This message has been edited by Seamaster (edited 3/3/2009 6:06p).]

You can actually see where he switches from actually typing to copying somebody else's work without citing as usual.

Matt & Seamaster -The fact of the matter is that you can not deal with the information that I presented. You try to escape to a tangent. Too bad for you guys.

Here is what your former scholar priest wrote when he stated that Latin Catholics and Protestants will learn of a doctrine of salvation that, while relatively foreign to their ears, is nevertheless part of the heritage of the undivided Catholic Church of the first millennium. Members of Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches will discover on the American continent an amazing parallel to their own belief that salvation in Christ involves our becoming 'partakers of the divine nature.'

Vajda then cited some early Christian writers who supported this view: "St. Irenaeus of Lyons, ... Who had known St. Polycarp, who had known the Apostles - wrote, 'the Word of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, who because of his immeasurable love became what we are in order to make us what he is.' St. Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D. 295-373) also explained that 'God became man, so that we might be made gods.'" (gasp!)

Many other Christian writers addressed the subject. In speaking of the hereafter, Barnabas wrote, "We ourselves shall be made perfect so we may become heirs of the covenant of the Lord." Justin Martyr recognized that mortal men could eventually be defied: "We have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue. Theophilus (second century AD) wrote that if a man would keep the commandments of God, he should receive as reward from Him immortality, and should become God.

Hippolytus further elaborated on this same subject: "If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver, he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead." Cyprian reaffirmed that men can become like Christ: "What Christ is, we Christians shall be, if we imitate Christ."

It is important to understand that the process of becoming like God, though possible, is still a long and strenuous journey. Irenaeus noted: "We have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods." Clement of Alexandria spoke of the "great preparation and previous training" it would require. He then spoke of the reward of godhood that followed: "It (the instruction and preparation) leads us to the endless and perfect ends, teaching us beforehand the future life that we shall lead, according to God, and with gods; after we are freed from all punishment and penalty which we undergo ... After which redemption the reward and the honours are assigned to those who have become perfect; when they have got done with the purification ... The Lord, there awaits them restoration to everlasting contemplation; and they are called by the appellation of gods, being destined to sit on thrones with the other gods that have been first put in their places by the Saviour."

Clement of Alexandria then added: "Being baptized we are illuminated; illuminated, we become sons; being made sons, we are made perfect, we are made immortal. 'I' says He, have said that ye are gods, and all sons of the Highest." Arnobius (A.D. 260-230) went even further, as summarized by the Encyclopedia of early Christianity: "The gods were originally human beings who were deified upon death."

Some have contended that the references of the early Christian writers to deification and godhood meant only immortality and moral perfection, not an acquisition of godly power; but the scriptures and writers referred to above spoke of man achieving a "fullness of Christ", being one like Christ and the Father, becoming "joint-heirs with Christ", reigning with Christ, becoming like Christ, and sitting "on thrones with other gods." So guys, does this sound like something less than a fulness of godhood to you?

Iraneous made it clear that exalted man would not be regulated to some type of glorified angel, but literally become a god: "Passing beyond the angels and be made after the image and likeness of God." Clement of Alexandria added this unequivocal statement about a man who lives a righteous life: "knowing God, he will be made God.

What a great potential future awaits you if can overcome what you think you know!

[This message has been edited by diamond4 (edited 3/3/2009 9:22p).]

I just want to make sure we are clear...You are quoting a random priest (yes he appears to be nothing special) from the 20th century who wrote a thesis on this?

Diamond4.

I apologize for assuming that you were capable of rational dialog.

agmatt.

Yes he loves using examples of converts to the Mormon faith but he ignores it when Mormon 'priesthood holders' become Catholic priests (or Protestant pastors).

Catholic Priest was once a Mormon.

It is remarkable that such an accomplished guy like Diamond4 (he is) can be so childish.

Matt - This Catholic Priest was and is a scholar. A priesthood holder in the LDS Church does not depend one iota on his priesthood calling for his livelihood. It is a great leap of faith to leave your full-time job with all of its training to go find another way entirely to feed yourself.

It would be rewarding to see you address the actual topic that we have been talking about.

As you know, there are almost 300,000 converts to the Church every year but I have never read of one like Mario's, who, in the prime of his life, taught to be a thief from the age of 9 and a key member of the most ruthless crime organization, was willing to sacrifice everything he had for his membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Wealth, position, beautiful wife, etc. for what he was sure was going to be certain death. The fact that he was Catholic is a nit. The story would be remarkable if he came from no religious background. I really wish you would get the DVD "Mario's Conviction" and then tell me what you think. I promise you it would be most interesting. If you give me your address I will send you a copy.

quote:

---

This Catholic Priest was and is a scholar.

---

Name of said former pries and the title(s) of his work(s) of scholarship that you are drawing from please. Really should not have to continually ask for such basic information from you.

jkagag -I have given it before. Here it is from the earlier post on this thrread.

But before I give you what the early Christian writers had to say about it, let me give you what one of your Catholic priest had to say about the subject. He eventually joined the LDS Church which meant he gave up his livelihood. It should be of interest to you that Jordan Vajda O.P. in 1998, while a Roman Catholic priest, submitted his master's thesis to the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California. Entitled "'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization." He had come to a similar conclusion as the early Christian writers while submitting this thesis. He wrote the following: "The historic Christian doctrine of salvation - theosis, meaning, human divinization (becoming like God) - for too long has been forgotten by too many Christians, despite the fact that this teaching is a part of the common inheritance - first millennium Christianity."

In his first chapter, Vajda writes, "Members of the LDS Church will discover unmistakable evidence that their fundamental belief about human salvation and potential is not unique nor a Mormon invention. Latin Catholics and Protestants will learn of a doctrine of salvation that, while relatively foreign to their ears, is nevertheless part of the heritage of the undivided Catholic Church of the first millennium.

diamond4 - I thought it was Jordan Vajda was whom you were referring since you brought his master's thesis up before. Sorry I missed your reference to him earlier in this thread. Representing him as a Catholic priest is somewhat dishonest however, since he is no longer Catholic.

By the way, since I have a master's degree and also had to write a thesis, am I a scholar in your mind?