In other words, a shift in the direction of Protestantism to a degree is a healthy thing in terms of practical behavior – it is also far easier to comprehend – milk before meat and all that. If one understands exaltation as the process of becoming a personal, absolute, sovereign, and independent instance of God instead of a humble bearer of His name the way the Lord Jesus was it leads to near fatal errors, what I call hyper-sovereignty or photocopier theology.

Now of course we normally emphasize the personal aspect of God in the Latter-day Saint world to the degree that we use “God” as a synonym for a single exalted individual, where the rest of Christianity uses the term to refer to the Trinity – a mystical union of three individuals – neither dividing the substance, nor confusing the persons. Technically speaking they are accurate, and our shorthand is not, and that should give us a clue as to what exaltation is really like.

The scriptures are emphatic that there is only one God, infinite and eternal. We need to get our nomenclature straight if we hope to understand our theology. Otherwise the accusation is liable to be correct that we are tri-theists or worse, polytheists. We are neither, in the sense that matters. There is only one true and living God, and multiple persons.

The Father could not be God without the Son, neither the Son without the Father, neither the Holy Ghost without both of them. And yet not three Gods, but one God, infinite and eternal. There is a great mystery in this. I posted on the subject today at Millennial Star.

But seriously, Mark, how would you resolve this “number one problem” and stem the move toward Protestantism?

Now I should say that is a halfway decent approximation, as long as one understands the true nature of God. And it is also true that At-one-ment is necessary to accomplish good works of lasting value.

However, in contemporary LDS thought it leads to a position like J. Stapley’s – that the Godhead is composed of three personal beings that are infinitely different than us, that we can never contribute one iota to their glory. Thus exaltation is impossible, only glorification as the Protestants teach – basking forever in borrowed light.

Thus taking upon ourselves the name of Christ is a token only, and not actually effective in making us joint heirs with our Lord Jesus Christ. More Augustianism.

Now while, per instruction, I shall not discuss it here (go to Millennial Star for that) my understanding of the doctrine of the name of Christ is that the scriptures are riddled with synecdoche where Jesus represents the greater reality of all the true sons and daughters of God, who suffer in his holy name, according to the sacrifice that our Lord requires of them.

And because this principle is confusing, the prophets, particularly the authors of the New Testament, use constant synecdoche to switch back and forth, even speak on multiple semantic levels at the same time. Now if this were not the case, a strict conventional interpretation of the scriptures does indeed imply the doctrine the way the Protestants (and Catholics as well, as a rule) teach it. But the scriptures are full of riddles to make sure that no one can reconcile that interpretation, lest they error (hence the problem with binding creeds).

So the number one problem in contemporary LDS theological discourse in my view is trying to reconcile an irreconcilable conception of the nature of the true and living God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent. Can’t be done – hence the flight to Protestantisms.

I apologize. I am firmly of the belief that there is no “official” view on the subject of how God became God, how Christ and God and we differ, and so forth. The “authorized” view of these matters is best considered one of benign neglect. I should say that my current position is primarily one wherein I think you are all wrong but I don’t have the time at the moment to educate myself sufficiently to argue specifics. Hence, my general condemnation earlier. However, my lack of regard for your pet theories certainly doesn’t mean that they are heretical or blasphemous. I am certainly no authority on the subject.
I should say that I believe that Millet, Robinson, et al do offer a different take on how we become like God than I see in your theories. I don’t know that they ever really discuss where God came from, which is where I would say they have no opinion on the matter. But when they talk about becoming a disciple, they are talking about becoming like God.

But all along you have been saying that you disagree with the takes I and J and Mark have on the subject because you agree with the take Millet and Robinson and several apostles on it. What you really mean is you don’t like our takes but you don’t have an alternative take at all. Rather, you prefer not to think about it.

That is fine if you don’t want to think about the subject. My point is this: Don’t imply that the take that I or others have is somehow contrary to some “official” or “authorized” view on this subject. An official or authorized view does not exist.

My point is that refusing to discuss it is not an approach at all. Of course we only have access to the public discussions of these men so none of us know their actual theological approach they individually use in understanding the KFD and SitG. (And again, Millet and Robinson have no business being lumped in with apostles. Do you really think that highly of them?)

Those are all folks who (I assume) have examined KFD and other poorly recorded discussions as thoroughly as possible and have come to the conclusions they have come to.

What exactly are those conclusions for each of these men? If they refuse to talk about the details publicly then you are only guessing about their conclusions. So how do you know you agree with any of them or that any of them agree with each other?

From my one-time reading of the KFD in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith years ago

Aye aye aye…

I don’t see anything that substantially clashes with the approach I take.

HP, you don’t take any approach. Pretending these issues don’t exist is not taking an approach regarding them.