Can Man Become Like God?

[Symeon]

[quote author=Darth_Bill link=board=23;threadid=346;start=90#msg4761 date=1080071851]Found a great quote on another board, from a catholic.

God became man that man might become God. Though He was rich he became poor that we might become rich. This sums up my belief on theosis. The Son of God who was God by nature, become man, and we who are man by nature shall become God. Just as the Logos did not loose his divinity when he took on a human nature, man shall not loose his humanity when he takes on the divine nature. What Jesus Christ is by nature, we become by grace.
-David Waltz

[/quote]Thanks, DB.

I would "nuance" that just a tad, reflecting the nuances added by various church councils in the 300s and 400s.

We will not "become God" in the same sense that the Son is God. When I visited that web site and discussion board, I noticed that David prefaced his decaration by quoting (among others) Pope John Paul II, who in his turn said carefully: "God became man that man could truly participate in the life of God—so that, indeed, in a certain sense, he could become God." (emphasis added)

For those of us in the Nicene tradition, this phrase "in a certain sense" helps shield us from (what we see as) the blasphemy of saying that any of us might become equal to, or equivalent to, or the equal of, or the same as, God, full stop.

To continue ...

"When the Logos took on a human nature," as David puts it, He became a two-natured being: human and divine. But when we "partake of the divine nature" we will continue to be fully human: the divine nature will dwell in us, but will not make us into two-natured beings. We will continue to depend on the two-natured Son to ensure that our human nature is "compatible" with the divine nature.

With respect to this aspect of the Son, I have a mental image of a plug adapter, a thing that has a plug to fit a socket with one configuration, and a different-configured socket to fit a different-configured plug, thus making it possible for someone who has a device with plug type A to get electrical current and/or electronic data from a thing that has socket type B.

Since Orthodoxy makes a Big Deal about gaining access to "the divine energies" (we can have direct access to the uncreated energies of God, even though we cannot have direct access to the uncreated essence of God), that mental image has some resonance for me. :-)

FWIW, and all that.

[Darth_Bill]

>For those of us in the Nicene tradition, this phrase "in a certain sense" helps shield us from (what we see as) the blasphemy of saying that any of us might become equal to, or equivalent to, or the equal of, or the same as, God, full stop.

Yeah, but we covered that ground already. I don't think LDS believe we will be equal with God. That isn't what we mean either. No use talking past each other anymore.

LDS don't have the same creator-creature issue that other groups have but don't think that we will throw away the separation in authority and influence between us and the Father. I find little to argue with considering what I have read in the RCC Catacism on this matter, although I have yet to read the whole work. I also have modified my view on the nicean trinity. However, I think that some of our definitions have changed and that it now is interpreted into something that wasn't intended. The "one-substance, in terms of being" seems to be a product of Augustine, not the council of Nicea.

[Symeon]

[quote author=Darth_Bill link=board=23;threadid=346;start=90#msg4764 date=1080159762]
>For those of us in the Nicene tradition, this phrase "in a certain sense" helps shield us from (what we see as) the blasphemy of saying that any of us might become equal to, or equivalent to, or the equal of, or the same as, God, full stop.

Yeah, but we covered that ground already. I don't think LDS believe we will be equal with God. That isn't what we mean either. No use talking past each other anymore. [/quote]DB, I'm still speaking cautiously about this, because I'm still digesting that remarkable discussion we had a few weeks ago -- a discussion that wasn't necessarily read by everyone who might look into this discussion, by the way.

One thing I think that keeps me cautious is my knowledge that LDS are no more "lock-step" in your beliefs than Nicene-tradition Christians are. A couple of examples, certainly not having equal weight:

1. I've already mentioned someone I encountered in alt.religion.mormon a few years ago, who made a distinction between LDS notions of "the one God" and most everybody else's notions by distinguishing between two Greek words for "one": "hena" and "monos". "Monotheists", he said, "believe that there *is* only one God. Henotheists like us LDS," he said, "believe that there are many gods ... but we only worship one of them."

An interesting notion, which has the added attraction of being useful. (Not everything interesting is useful, and vice versa.) Alas, when I mentioned it here, I think it was you who said that it was not widely held by LDS -- perhaps no more widely than by that one person.

2. There is a vivid anecdote, with which you are no doubt aware, of Brigham Young talking to some friends (I want to say "buddies&quot about the post-resurrection life. He said he looked forward to picking and choosing which of his wives would be allowed to rise from their graves and joining him. "Up, Sarah, up, Martha! Oh, stay there, you Susan, you gave me a lot of trouble, you did!" Something like that -- I'm going from memory, and of course the names are all wrong (but the names aren't the point, of course).

There, I'd venture to say, is a man who is mighty close to behaving as if he expects to have the same sort of authority as God.

So ... I know what you said, DB. I'm not 110% sure it's what every (well-instructed) LDS would necessarily say.

Another reason I cannot be sure, at this point, is the "terminology" problem. Ya nevver noe when what seems like a solution on one term will simply uncover a problem with another one ... as I think we saw in some of that othre discussion.

To continue, another reason I said it is because it does note something that I think is indisputable: whether or not LDS and Nicenes *mean* different things, it is clear that they are *offended and/or nervous* by/about different things. For example, you said ...

LDS don't have the same creator-creature issue that other groups have but don't think that we will throw away the separation in authority and influence between us and the Father.

My comment noted the nervousness with which we Nicenes approach the topic of theosis ... in sharp contrast to the nerveless attitude that we feel that we see among LDS. (That's not meant as a criticism, simply as an observation about "style", so to speak.)

I find little to argue with considering what I have read in the RCC Catechism on this matter, although I have yet to read the whole work.

LOL! Nor have I ... the copy I have is more than 1,000 pages thick! I use it as I would a dictionary (except that I use dictionaries much more often).

You continued,

I also have modified my view on the nicean trinity. However, I think that some of our definitions have changed and that it now is interpreted into something that wasn't intended. The "one-substance, in terms of being" seems to be a product of Augustine, not the council of Nicea.

Really? "homo-ousia" was the word chosen at Nicaea. It means "same essence". A fair number of bishops shied away from it, since it's not found in scripture. They only accepted it when they saw Arian heretics making hay fast and furious during a post-council period when it was (temporarily) withdrawn.

I'll also point out that Augustine is almost unknown in the Christian East. He wrote only in Latin, a language used by few in the East even while he was alive (mid- to late-400s or so). He did have a huge influence on the West, of course, but in the East ... naw.

And the results of that can be seen in some of the ideas that clearly did come from him. For example, the West's distinctive notions about "Original Sin" come pretty directly from Augustine. The East did not get those notions, so the Orthodox have a different understanding of the effects of the sin of Adam and Eve -- one closer to the Jewish understanding of "sin", one that does not involve changes in the nature of humanity or of human beings.

Therefore, before you jump too quickly on the Augustine bandwagon, DB ... check your sources (and check their premises). :-)

[Bow_B_4_Christ]

Man will never be God, or a god, that was Satan's lie in the begining and he will continue to use the same tools to lead people astray. The Bible is very clear in that there is only One God and there will only ever be One God (Deuteronomy 4:39; Isiah 44:8, 45:5-7; Mark 12:32). For anyone to belive we have any divinity in our own beings is being led astray from the Truth and pride in their heart.

[Darth_Bill]

>1. I've already mentioned someone I encountered in alt.religion.mormon a few years ago, who made a distinction between LDS notions of "the one God" and most everybody else's notions by distinguishing between two Greek words for "one": "hena" and "monos". "Monotheists", he said, "believe that there *is* only one God. Henotheists like us LDS," he said, "believe that there are many gods ... but we only worship one of them."

Well, don't ever use arm as a good source for LDS thought. People go there to fight. In the past, I have also used the term henotheism to describe our belief, but as I mentioned in the other thread, there are implications to that term that I am not comfortable with. As to the phrase the arm user used...I find it remarkably like what Paul in 1Cor8:5-6. As to the specifics, there is much speculation but that is all it is. In terms of our "theosis", we use the term gods in a narrow form as defined in our scriptures and it is always subordinate to Jesus Christ. Although some might forget the details, I am a firm believer in that whole atonement thing and that I can't become equal to the master. If other LDS believe differently, that is their choice.

It's a complicated idea and some like to run with it. Most don't care and leave the details to work themselves out. To find out what is doctrine on the matter, you should go to scriptures.lds.org and search the Doctrine and Covenants. Most of what we are told is in section 76 and 132. There are other extrascriptural sources like the King Follett Sermon but that is not common consent doctrine and there are a few different versions.

>There, I'd venture to say, is a man who is mighty close to behaving as if he expects to have the same sort of authority as God.

Not really. First, BY was quite flippant about certain matters and had a sense of humor. Much of his humor would be unappreciated outside LDS circles. This sounds like an instance of it. (I am amused by the story if true.) This also comes the idea of a husband calling his wife from the grave upon the resurrection (not from his own power. Christ has that.). Not exactly doctrinal, and really, not of much use. We do believe that Christ can impart some of his authority to his faithful servants but we can't have that in and of ourselves.

My comment on Augustine comes from a general discussion that I came across on the matter. I don't think Augustine was the sole source of what I would term the changing definition of the "one-substance" problem that LDS have. Just that he championed it. The opinions that I have mentioned that within a generation the definition changed.

Most pre-niceans held the view of three things made of one substance, say, wood. Just as we are human, we are of one substance, say, flesh. It wasn't until later that one substance became a form of identity.

All this is just opinion as far as I know. I haven't had the time to read a whole lot on the controversy and it doesn't stick in my head for very long.

I've committed to reading some of Augustine but I just haven't had the time. There is just so much out there and so little time. I'm quickly becoming one who will leave it up to God to figure out. Whatever he decides, sounds good to me. I've got a three year old son that I want to spend time with.

[Darth_Bill]

>Man will never be God, or a god, that was Satan's lie in the begining and he will continue to use the same tools to lead people astray.

Please read up on the matter in Genesis and figure out what the lie really was and what God said on the matter of "become as one of us"...which begs the question of who the "us" was.

>The Bible is very clear in that there is only One God and there will only ever be One God (Deuteronomy 4:39; Isiah 44:8, 45:5-7; Mark 12:32).

I am also very comfortable with using the term "One God" and I'm sometimes accused of polytheism. There is more than one way to use "One God". I am commanded to be of "One Flesh" with my wife. What does that mean exactly? Might there be more to it than a quick run through? As I mentioned other places, I don't view the scriptures as a simple book. It is very complicated.

>For anyone to belive we have any divinity in our own beings is being led astray from the Truth and pride in their heart.

I'm not exactly sure how to answer this, as our definitions of divinity probably differ. Our terminology doesn't match up.

I like what one person said on another board. Our existance doesn't end at our forehead and our feet. We are not humans having spiritual experiences. We are spiritual beings having human experiences.

I am very comfortable with my views on theosis from the biblical text alone. Evidently, the concept isn't that much of a difficulty because two of the largest christian groups have some form of it.

[Symeon]

[quote author=Darth_Bill link=board=23;threadid=346;start=90#msg4773 date=1080223200]>1. I've already mentioned someone I encountered in alt.religion.mormon a few years ago, who made a distinction between LDS notions of "the one God" and most everybody else's notions by distinguishing between two Greek words for "one": "hena" and "monos". "Monotheists", he said, "believe that there *is* only one God. Henotheists like us LDS," he said, "believe that there are many gods ... but we only worship one of them."

Well, don't ever use arm as a good source for LDS thought. People go there to fight. [/quote]On the one hand, you're quite right of course.

On the other hand, at least that is a place where LDS are confronted with the fact that LDS vocabulary often uses words differently from Nicene vocabulary, and thus that LDS formulations that rely on the "by the book" LDS vocabulary do not always convey the intended message to those of us who are not initiated into the Higher Mysteries of the LDS vocabulary.

(As you said in your followup to BB4C, even our definitions of divinity itself don't always "match up".)

Therefore, while you referred me to sections in D&C, what I would get from them would be *my* interpretation of the passages, and their terminology ... not necessarily the *LDS* interpretation of them.

<chuckle> This week's interpretation, at least! (Subject to revelation without notice, and all that ... )

So I remain wary about thinking that I "understand" or "know" the LDS position on any but the most publicly-acclaimed points.

Regarding our different levels of boldness, a couple of remarks of yours encourage me to think I'm right -- while also making me inclined to think that it's so much a part of the LDS belief-culture that it might be invisible to you. You said:

In terms of our "theosis", we use the term gods in a narrow form as defined in our scriptures and it is always subordinate to Jesus Christ. Although some might forget the details, I am a firm believer in that whole atonement thing and that I can't become equal to the master. If other LDS believe differently, that is their choice.

"That is their choice." So tCoJCoLDS gives them that choice ??

If so, then from our point of view that's quite a difference in attitude/latitude! You see, if Nicene Christians believe differently, if they believe that "I can become equal to the master", then from our point of view (in our belief-culture) they're blasphemers (as well as heretics, oh by the way).

This is why we are so shocked by such language.

Likewise, in your account of the BY anecdote, you said

BY was quite flippant about certain matters and had a sense of humor. Much of his humor would be unappreciated outside LDS circles. This sounds like an instance of it. (I am amused by the story if true.)

Again, while on the one hand I understand a guy being occasionally flippant among his "buds", on the other hand this feels like revelling in the thought of Power To Come ... which calls to mind Christ's admonition to the Seventy, when they returned rejoicing that they had had power over the devils. (Luke something, I'm not near a Bible just now)

I hope you don't take that the wrong way ... I'm not trying to go out of my way to criticize BY. I'm pointing out that it appears that BY, and you, and perhaps other LDS, are much more bold -- much less nervous -- about the "god-like" implications of theosis (using the phrase "god-like" in a non-technical, everyday-speech sense) -- than we Nicene Christians are. Just showing some examples of your (collective) boldness.

On Augustine, you noted,

My comment on Augustine comes from a general discussion that I came across on the matter. I don't think Augustine was the sole source of what I would term the changing definition of the "one-substance" problem that LDS have. Just that he championed it. The opinions that I have mentioned that within a generation the definition changed.

I see. Yes, he sponsored the idea in the West, but it originated in the East. One good (and mercifully *short*) book is "Theological Anthropology", ed. J Patout Burns, ISBN 0800614127 -- Amazon has it for about US$10.50. The articles in this volume discuss the various early Christian authors pretty well -- including Augustine.

Though if you want to know what the "homo-ousians" thought, go to the source. St Athanasius's (also short) treatise "On the Incarnation" is on the web. See http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-0...m#P1830_678055. Of course, you might prefer a more readible text: ISBN 0913836400, Amazon has it for about $10. Brilliant writing, and this short volume has an Introduction by CS Lewis!

Much better than Augustine, IMHO (having read both).

Either book might be available via libraries, btw.

[Darth_Bill]

>On the other hand, at least that is a place where LDS are confronted with the fact that LDS vocabulary often uses words differently from Nicene vocabulary, and thus that LDS formulations that rely on the "by the book" LDS vocabulary do not always convey the intended message to those of us who are not initiated into the Higher Mysteries of the LDS vocabulary.

I never said that our vocabularies match. I never made that assertion. I also don't necessarily like "confronted". I don't know any LDS apologists that say we use words the same. Yes, our understandings are different. That is a by-product of the restoration.

><chuckle> This week's interpretation, at least! (Subject to revelation without notice, and all that ... )

First, interpretation isn't revelation. Two different things. Yes, interpretations change from person to person, which is why you are not catholic or protestant. And don't get me started with "revelation without notice". I don't think that applies to any LDS activities. Indeed, it is kind of self contradictory. Revelation is giving notice.

>"That is their choice." So tCoJCoLDS gives them that choice ??

Sure does. However, it is different from belief to preach. No one is allowed to preach that we will become equal to our master, nor do I believe that is actually what they are saying. Also, I think that it is you that is misinterpretting our conversations in the matter. If you want, why not suffix every LDS statement on deification with "Only by the blood and sacrifice of the Saviour, Jesus Christ, in whom all authority flows and with whom we have been promised to dwell." if that will clarify the issue a bit. You might want to read section 76 about the celestial kingdom.

>I hope you don't take that the wrong way ... I'm not trying to go out of my way to criticize BY. I'm pointing out that it appears that BY, and you, and perhaps other LDS, are much more bold -- much less nervous -- about the "god-like" implications of theosis (using the phrase "god-like" in a non-technical, everyday-speech sense) -- than we Nicene Christians are. Just showing some examples of your (collective) boldness.

Possibly. However, we are just humans. So are our presidents. We don't go around somber all the time. We have great respect for the sacrifice of our savior that made the whole thing possible. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy speculating and poking a bit of fun at our own beliefs. I don't view this in the same way as you. Also, as I have said before, it is others that tend to dwell on the idea of theosis. We spend very little time with it. I think certain LDS start threads like this just to fuss. I don't think I started a thread on this. I like other issues.

One time a reporter asked BY why the LDS held so many dances and parties. BY responded that he could assure the reporter that there would be no dancing in Hell. Actually, I am kind of amused at your take on this. Generally we are criticized for being too serious. JS once got so confused by another minister that his only response was something like "Enough of this, Wanna wrestle?"

I don't put that kind of humor with debating on how powerful we will be in the eternities. I have heard LDS talk in that manner in our meetings and it made me extremely uncomfortable.

I assure you that we take the atonement very seriously. We do not joke about that.

Oh. What is a good book on the separation of the EO and RCC? Some issues on other boards kind of piqued my interest. This gent expressed some reservations about the EO which kind of surprised me. Generally LDS have a high opinion on the EO.

[Symeon]

[quote author=Darth_Bill link=board=23;threadid=346;start=105#msg4796 date=1080311789]
>On the other hand, at least that is a place where LDS are confronted with the fact that LDS vocabulary often uses words differently from Nicene vocabulary, and thus that LDS formulations that rely on the "by the book" LDS vocabulary do not always convey the intended message to those of us who are not initiated into the Higher Mysteries of the LDS vocabulary.

I never said that our vocabularies match. I never made that assertion. I also don't necessarily like "confronted". I don't know any LDS apologists that say we use words the same. Yes, our understandings are different. That is a by-product of the restoration. [/quote]Sorry if this makes you uncomfortable, but you folks make *us* uncomfortable when you enter into discussions with us, using words that we both happen to share solely in your own way, and then expressing surprise (and sometimes complaining) when we get confused and/or when we complain about being misled.

One thing I took away from my experience on a.r.m. was that we Nicene folk aren't being misled -- I did figure out that you LDS folks "mean it". (As you know, not everybody figures that out.) Of course, that is no surprise to you.

But one thing I'm getting out of my experience *here* is that the breadth and range of the difference in vocabulary is much greater than I had expected. In the pretty-much flame-free environment here, we're able to dig a little deeper into the nature of our mutual confusion/frustration, and we're able to uncover more than folks can at a.r.m. And this is what we're uncovering.

What is equally important (I think) is that this is *also* a surprise to the LDS folks here. At least, none of the LDS folks here has taken the lead in guiding us Nicene folks through the terminology maze. You've been happy to follow my lead (which makes sense, since you're not trying to mislead us) ... but it looks like it's not something that had already occurred to you to do.

I find that interesting and a little odd, since we Eastern Orthodox folks encounter vocabulary differences with Western Christians all the time, and are constantly having to remind both them and ourselves about these nuances. (Examples: "repentence", "sin", "sacrament".) So I would have thought that LDS folks who have encountered non-LDS Christians would have figured this out already. *shrug* Apparently not. Well, we're all human.

You went on to say:

><chuckle> This week's interpretation, at least! (Subject to revelation without notice, and all that ... )

First, interpretation isn't revelation. Two different things. Yes, interpretations change from person to person, which is why you are not catholic or protestant. And don't get me started with "revelation without notice". I don't think that applies to any LDS activities. Indeed, it is kind of self contradictory. Revelation is giving notice.

Okay, so I conflated two notions for the sake of a quick chuckle. Nonetheless, as you've noted elsewhere, "LDS teaching" is sometimes a moving target ... due to that "revelation" thing. (The most widely-publicized examples I can think of are polygamy (1890) and the racial composition of the LDS priesthood (1978).)

So -- since I don't necessarily understand your vocabulary, when I read your doctrinal statements, I'm likely to misunderstand them. How can I get *your* (collective) understanding of the statements? The only way is gonna be to go to a knowledgable LDS (for example, in this forum), and ask him or her how the terms are being used. And how will I know that one LDS is more (or less) knowledgable than another one? Only by going to several others and asking the same thing, in order to get a sense of the consensus.

Because I can't trust myself to understand what your documents' words mean.

Of course, if I go to all that trouble (and a lot of trouble it is, if I don't intend to convert), there's always the chance that the issue might be rendered moot by another revelation. (Suppose I queried LDS folks about polygamy in 1889? or queried them about the white-only priesthood in 1977?) All that work, and now it does me no good! Ah well! (hey, better a chuckle than a whine, eh?)

To be continued ...

[Symeon]

... continuing ...

>"That is their choice." So tCoJCoLDS gives them that choice ??

Sure does. However, it is different from belief to preach. No one is allowed to preach that we will become equal to our master, nor do I believe that is actually what they are saying. Also, I think that it is you that is misinterpretting our conversations in the matter. If you want, why not suffix every LDS statement on deification with "Only by the blood and sacrifice of the Saviour, Jesus Christ, in whom all authority flows and with whom we have been promised to dwell." if that will clarify the issue a bit. You might want to read section 76 about the celestial kingdom.

Thanks, but I don't think that would clarify it, and I feel no confidence that reading that section would help me ... because you folks use words so differently. I would much -- much -- rather develop my understanding though dialogue with living LDS. DB, I can ask you about the meaing of a word you use. I can't ask "section 76" to explain its words (in terms that a non-LDS person will be able to follow).

>I hope you don't take that the wrong way ... I'm not trying to go out of my way to criticize BY. I'm pointing out that it appears that BY, and you, and perhaps other LDS, are much more bold -- much less nervous -- about the "god-like" implications of theosis (using the phrase "god-like" in a non-technical, everyday-speech sense) -- than we Nicene Christians are. Just showing some examples of your (collective) boldness.

Possibly. However, we are just humans. So are our presidents. We don't go around somber all the time. We have great respect for the sacrifice of our savior that made the whole thing possible. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy speculating and poking a bit of fun at our own beliefs. I don't view this in the same way as you.

What struck me is not that he speculated; it's not that he poked some fun; it's not that he wasn't somber and sober-sided. Orthodox saints have speculated, have poked fun, have been other than somber and sober-sided.

It's that speculation and joviality about *this* subject was deemed fit to record ... and that you chuckled about it, too. The authority that the Orthodox saints wield and will wield is something that none of us Orthodox joke about. Perhaps because none of us living Orthodox take it for granted that we will have that authority ourselves.

The path to salvation is one we tread so long as we live, and (we believe) there is no assurance that any one of us will be successful in reaching the end of the path. Indeed, those who are most confident that they will, are perhaps at the greatest risk of falling off the path. Look at Judas -- if anyone was a "shoe-in" for salvation, he would have been it -- right up until ~Tuesday or so of Passion Week. As one of the Twelve, he had spent much more time with Jesus than most people, and he had been entrusted with the purse of the disciples. We get no hints that he was more sinful or more worldly-minded than the other Disciples, before the account of Jesus's last trip to Jerusalem. Yet he fell.

In very sharp contrast, Moses is remembered for his humility -- "he was the humblest man who ever lived" -- and it is he with whom God chose to converse "face to face, like a friend". Jesus to spoke repeatedly of his own humility and meekness. I think St Paul only spoke of the authority that the saints will wield when he was chastizing the Corinthians for going to pagan courts to settle disputes among themselves ... "you will judge the nations! and you ask pagans to judge you??" ... hardly a celebration about that authority!

I remember a high school classmate who (for some reason) was nervous about anything electrical, even light switches on the wall. She would reach for the switch as if she expected to get zapped. But I felt that I understood electricity and knew that I was safe. So I just flipped the switch.

Similarly, we Nicene Christians approach the topic of theosis as if we might get "zapped" if we're not careful -- as Herod did when he was praised as a god and did not give the glory to God instead (Acts 12:22-24), and as the Apostles apparently feared when they begged the people not to acclaim them as gods (Acts 14:11-18). Whereas you LDS folks talk about "becoming gods" without showing any appearance of trepidation or of worrying that you might get "zapped".

So this serves to illustrate, I think, that LDS are much more likely to have an easy-going readiness-to-talk attitude, when discussing certain specific things that we Nicene Christians discuss cautiously and carefully.

I did notice that you said

I don't put that kind of humor with debating on how powerful we will be in the eternities. I have heard LDS talk in that manner in our meetings and it made me extremely uncomfortable.

For your sake, I'm glad you were uncomfortable. But, again, if it were an Orthodox setting I would be surprised if the leader of a meeting would allow that kind of talk, in the first place.

I don't say that to say "we're right and you're wrong." I say it only to illustrate my point: that the spectrum of "comfort zones" among LDS reaches into places that our spectrum does not reach.

Finally, you asked

Oh. What is a good book on the separation of the EO and RCC? Some issues on other boards kind of piqued my interest. This gent expressed some reservations about the EO which kind of surprised me. Generally LDS have a high opinion on the EO.

Hmm. That is a *huge* subject. Are you primarily interested in the history of the separation? (dates and names, that sort of thing?) Or a discussion of the theology involved? (what points divide us, and what each side says about them?) Or something else?

This page on the OCA site might give you a starting-point: http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Q-and-A/index.html. If it doesn't help, please let me know (and tell me in what respect it doesn't help).