The Chalcedonian Definition describes Jesus as homoousios with mankind with respect to his humanity:

“He is of the same essence (homousios) as the Father according to his deity, and the same one is of the same essence (homousios) with us according to his humanity, like us in all things except sin.”

In some sense Mormonism teaches that the Father and Son are homoousios, and that humanity is homoousios with all the exalted gods.

Thus the chasm between Mormonism and Christianity is more about the ousia of deity itself than whether the Father and Son are homoousios. It posits a potentially infinite number of beings and infinite particles of matter that God did not (and even cannot) create. Hence, Mormonism substantially (even if not superficially) rejects the very first line of the Nicene Creed:

“I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.”

This is more fundamental than its superficial rejection of homoousios. Regarding that term Ron Huggins says,

“Mormons delight in targeting this word homoousios in the creed as making a serious departure from the Bible into the realm of philosophical speculation. I have never read a Mormon writer who notices that homoousios echoes the earlier use of ousia… Or that the introduction of both words can be seen to represent a fairly modest clarification, namely that Jesus was the Son, not the creature of the Father. An idea, by the way, that Mormons agree with.

“Indeed, I sometimes wonder why Mormons, in the midst of attacking the word, have never paused long enough to notice that their own doctrine might be able to apply homoousios in a much more comprehensive way, by using it to describe how all humans are of the same species as God.

“Mormons regularly say that we’re all of the same species as God. Why not simply take homoousios to refer to that in the context of plurality? Were they to do so, it might actually bring more clarity to Christian-Mormon discussion by setting out in sharper relief the difference between the biblical and the Mormon meaning of the term ‘only-begotten’.” (“Those Abominable Creeds”, by Ron Huggins, 25:44)

---

Added December 10, 2025

Caveat to watch out for: Christians affirm that the Father and Son are homoousios in a different manner (as God, per divine simplicity) than creatures can be of the same species.

Remember, I am a computer programmer.

• Speechify. With this I audibly consume PDFs, papers, articles, and Kindle books.
• GitHub Copilot in VS Code. Fancy autocomplete as I code.
• ChatGPT. I am in a constant conversation with the 4o model, and lately, with o1-mini for architectural questions.
• Apple Voice Memos transcription. Say I have a 9am meeting. At 8:30am on my commute I will verbalize my thoughts in preparation. Then, when I arrive at the office, I ask ChatGPT to polish and organize the transcribed thoughts in bullet points or slides.
• SelfControl app for Mac. Does an irreversible block on distracting web sites for a set amount of time. Helpful for getting in the zone.
• Warp terminal. Supports copy and paste and normal text cursor behavior in the command line.
• MacWhisper. I use this to quickly transcribe YouTube videos. Instead of watching a laborious recording, I can quickly peruse a transcript and find interesting parts. Better than YouTube’s native transcription.
• Signal Messenger. Far better than iMessage, Telegram, WhatsApp, etc.
• Bear Notes. My second brain, with near-instant full-text results. I have years of notes. Infinitely better than the now-notorious Evernote.
• Google Photos. Among my favorite software of all time. Frequently showing me historical and recent pictures of family and friends.
• Emporia Vue. Newly acquired. This home energy monitor helps me track energy usage while I work to reduce our electricity bill. In reality, this will probably just motivate me to pay more attention to our Nest programming for AC & furnace.
• Rode Wireless Mic Go II (lapel). MRM/UCRC has a set for recording lectures, debates, and street interviews. They are wonderful.
• Oreck bagged vacuum. Proven and reliable, unlike nearly every other modern fancy vacuum which chokes on small socks.
• Weighted vest + reading glasses. This is a simple way to burn calories while reading and walking.
• Mr. Pen No Bleed Gel Highlighters. Still a favorite for active reading.
• District Tri Crew t-shirts. 8 bucks. I can wear them multiple times before washing in some seasons.
• Keurig coffee machine. Insert pod. Push button. Wake up.
• Stainless steel chainmail scrubber. 9 bucks. Great for my cast iron breakfast pan.

This principle of eternal divine progenitorship in Christianity is found in God having always eternally begotten the Son.

In the late Joseph Smith (cf. Sermon in the Grove) it is in every Son having a Father, and every Father having a Son.

For Joseph Smith, it is found in the infinite regression of generated fathers and sons.

In Christianity, it is in the infinite generation of the eternal Son.

This is why I think that the Book of Mormon’s position on incarnational sonship (the Son became the Son when taking on flash) matters so much. It implicitly rejected eternal sonship and eternal generation, leaving a theological vacuum for eternal progenitorship. It paved the way for Smith to fill in the hole with his future innovation — of infinite regress.

My favorite quote on the image of God, by Herman Bavinck:

“The whole human person is the image of the whole deity.”

More in context:

“‘Image’ tells us that God is the archetype, humanity the ectype; ‘likeness’ adds the notion that the image corresponds in all parts to the original… This does not refer to certain attributes, either on God’s side or ours, such as the intellect or the soul, but rather that the whole human person is the image of the whole deity…”

“God. The whole being, the whole human person and not just “something” in us is the image of God…”
“It is important to insist that the whole person is the image of the whole God, that is, the triune God. The human soul, all the human faculties, the virtues of knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, and even the human body, all of it images God. Thus, a human being does not bear or have the image of God but is the image of God. As human beings we are the likeness or offspring of God (Gen. 1:26; 9:6; Luke 3:38; Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 11:7; James 3:9). Therefore, God himself, the entire deity, is the archetype of man…”

“The image thus extends to the whole person; nothing is excluded, soul and body, all faculties and powers, in all conditions and relations. It is of course true that in the same way that God’s attributes are more clearly revealed in some creatures than others, so also the image of God comes out more clearly in one part of the human organism than another, more in the soul than in the body, more in the ethical virtues than in the physical powers. This does not alter the truth that the whole person is the image of the triune God…”

“So the whole human being is image and likeness of God, in soul and body, in all human faculties, powers, and gifts. Nothing in humanity is excluded from God’s image; it stretches as far as and constitutes our humanity and humanness. All that is in God—his spiritual essence, his virtues and perfections, his immanent self-distinctions, his self-communication and self-revelation in creation—finds its admittedly finite and limited analogy and likeness in humanity.”

Source: Reformed Dogmatics: Abridged in One Volume

Source: Bergera, Gary James. Line Upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine. Signature Books, 1989. Archived online copy. Google Books link. Kindle link.

• Most Mormons accept the idea that “we came from a premortal existence where our spirits were literally begotten by a heavenly father and a heavenly mother.” (115)
  • “Closely related is the belief that the resurrected faithful of this earth will do what God has been doing: procreate spirit children for future worlds.” (115)
• “The doctrine clearly did not originate in scripture.” (116)
  • No explicit statements in the church’s four standard works (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price) support the spirit birth doctrine.” (115)
  • Cited to support the idea, Hale concedes that verses like Acts 17:28, Galatians 4:4-7, Romans 8:16, Hebrews 12:9 “do not state that God procreated our spirits, and while a premortal spirit birth may be inferred by the terms ‘Father,’ ‘sons,’ and ‘offspring,’ the more likely intent of these biblical authors is that God is the father of those who accept the gospel and are adopted as his spiritual children.”
    • [Hale miscategorizes at least Acts 17:28, which, though not about premortal spirit birth, neither is it about redemptive sonship. It instead speaks of God as the special creator of humans.]
    • D&C 76:24 “does not refer to the idea of literal procreation by God”, but about “begotten sons and daughters unto God through Jesus Christ.”
• Late Nauvoo theology ∉ early LDS scripture
  • “Most LDS scripture was produced while Mormon theology was in its infancy, and there is little in LDS canon from the theologically productive Nauvoo, Illinois, period of the early to mid-1840s.” (116)
• Despite extensive Mormon literature from this period, none of Joseph Smith’s recorded sermons explicitly teach spirit procreation.
• “Smith’s own doctrinal teaching was that the human spirit as a conscious entity is eternal—as eternal as God.” (p. 116)
• “Smith used the terms ‘spirit,’ ‘soul,’ ‘intelligence,’ and ‘mind’ synonymously to describe the inchoate, indestructible essence of life.” (p. 116)
• Eight documentary sources (from 6 May 1833 to 7 April 1844)
  • D&C 93:29 (1833): “Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.”
  • Willard Richards (c. 1839-1841): “The Spirit of Man is not a created being; it existed from Eternity & will exist to eternity.”
  • Joseph Smith (February 6, 1840): “I believe that the soul is eternal; and had no beginning; it can have no end… . the soul of man, the spirit, had existed from eternity in the bosom of Divinity.”
  • Joseph Smith (January 5, 1841): “If the soul of man had a beginning it will surely have an end… . Spirits are eternal.”
  • Joseph Smith (March 28, 1841): “The spirit or the inteligence of men are self Existant principles before the foundation [of] this Earth.”
  • Book of Abraham 3:18, 22-23 (1842): “If there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal. 22. Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones…”
  • George Laub (1845, summarizing Smith sermon dated April 6, 1843): “How came Spirits? Why, they are and ware Self Existing as all eternity & our Spirits are as Eternal as the very God is himself…”
  • King Follett discourse (April 7, 1844)
• Early formation
  • Lorenzo Snow and Orson Pratt promoted the spirit birth doctrine during Smith’s lifetime.
  • Published in the church’s official organ, Times and Seasons, and through sermons by apostles and Eliza R. Snow.
  • Orson Pratt’s Prophetic Almanac (1845): Introduced a catechism stating that humans are the offspring of God, implying literal spirit begetting.
  • Phelps
  • Eliza R. Snow’s “My Father in Heaven” (1845): References a mother in heaven and spirit birth, indicating these concepts were embraced post-Smith.
• Two main theories:
  • 1. Spirits formed from eternal, unorganized spirit matter through spirit birth.
    • Suggests spirits can have a beginning and potentially cease to exist, which conflicts with Smith’s view of eternal spirits.
  • 2. Individual intelligences are eternal and uncreated; spirit bodies are created through procreation by heavenly parents.
    • Supported by B. H. Roberts and others, though it diverges from Smith’s original teachings.
  • Both theories attempt to align Smith’s eternal spirit doctrine with the later spirit birth belief.
• Brigham Young
  • Taught that God and exalted beings are literal progenitors of both physical and spirit children.
    • First physical bodies on each world are begotten by the world’s god.
  • Reinforced the spirit birth doctrine, aligning it with the belief in eternal progression and exaltation.
• B. H. Roberts posited that the intelligences are eternal and uncreated, and that spirit bodies are procreated by divine beings
  • John A. Widtsoe adopted Roberts’ view, affirming the eternal nature of intelligence and supporting the idea of procreated spirit bodies
  • James E. Talmage
  • Joseph Fielding Smith
• The spirit birth doctrine is widely taught by Mormon leaders but contradicts Joseph Smith’s recorded teachings.
  • According to Hale, it likely emerged from early followers’ interpretations or unrecorded teachings rather than directly from Smith.

See also

• D&C 76:24 isn’t about “literal” spirit children (MRM article)

Human relationships are always influenced by time and space, yet they are never hindered by those limitations. When two people are speaking in person, for example, they hear each other’s words after those words are spoken, and each is communicating at different temporal rates. Yet, the conversation is still intelligible and meaningful to both parties.

Beyond that, consider a conversation broadcast over video: Each participant hears and sees the other not only speaking at different times but also from completely different locations. Yet, their relationship is not considered disingenuous. Humans don’t need to be in the same space, or connect at the same time, in order for there to be a meaningful relationship. In the same way, it seems to make little sense to think that God’s relationships with humans are anything less than authentic simply because they do not occupy the same time-space.

Those who claim that God’s relationships are less real because He is atemporal simply do not understand the wonderful significance of God’s eternality on His relationships.

By way of contrast, consider your own earthly relationships. When you have a newborn girl, you can experience and love her while she is in that needy state in a way you simply cannot when she becomes an independent adult. Similarly, when you grow old, your relationships to your siblings will be different than when you were children. This is because your relationships change based on the various temporal intervals of your earthly life.

Your relationships are limited and subject to change. They grow stronger and weaker in intimacy with the passage of time, distance, and communication. But when we consider God’s relationships with temporal creatures, we need to remember He possesses all His life at once. Thus, God has all of your life with Him at once. He can relate to us in fullness at once. He can be closer and more intimate with a temporal creature than two time-bound creatures ever could with each other. Since His relationships are not determined or affected by the fleeting moments of life, He does not possess the limitations in relationships that temporal creatures experience.

Thus, God has all of your life before Him each time you kneel in prayer. He can relate to you in a more real manner than you can relate to yourself—in complete fullness. He can be closer and more intimate with a temporal creature than a time-bound creature could ever hope to be. Your spouse can only relate to who you are in this moment, but God looks chronologically before and after you and can love you in the entirety of your being—past, present, and future.

The concern is that a genuine relationship is nullified between a time-bound creature and a time-less God. But this is simply not true. God always acts in time—He is the author of time, the governor of time, and has relationships with His creatures who are bound by time. Every decree of the Lord is executed in time. But God does not undergo temporal succession, even though the works of His hands are very much in time and space. The actions and relationships of the Lord are a product of His eternal will—His eternal will exists outside of time, and then it breathes numerous temporal effects into being.

In the end, those who claim that God’s relationships are less real because He is atemporal simply do not understand the depth of God’s relationships as an eternal being. As mentioned earlier, human relationships evolve based on the various temporal seasons of earthly life. Your relationships are limited by, and subject to, change. They grow stronger and weaker in intimacy with the passage of time, distance, and communication. They wane and are complicated by years and moves. But it is not so with God.

Sammons, Peter. The Forgotten Attributes of God: God’s Nature and Why it Matters (The Institute for the Christian Life Series) (pp. 124-126). CLC Publications. Kindle Edition.

Christian evangelists to Mormons have a long tradition of proclaiming Isaiah 43:10, 44:6, and 44:8:

• “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.”
• “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.”
• “Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.”

This is a glorious proclamation. May it continue.

Two pieces of advice for my evangelistic friends.

1. Stack this up with yet more of Isaiah 40-48

• He never learned (40:13-14).
• He can’t be likened to another (40:18)
• He alone stretched out the heavens and the earth (44:24).
• His understanding is unsearchable (40:28).
• He won’t share his glory with another (42:8).
• He has no equal (46:5).
• He declares the end from the beginning (46:10).

The spirit of monotheism isn’t merely to worship one God. It is also to acknowledge that he is uniquely worthy of worship. It is to worship him alone because he is exclusively worthy of worship. He alone can be described with the above attributes.

One way of saying this is: he alone is properly called God. “I am God, and there is no other” (Isaiah 46:9).

Another way of saying this: any other “gods” are inferior to him, subordinate to him, created by him, and should worship him. “Bow down to him, all gods” (Deuteronomy 32:43). “You are exalted far above all gods” (Psalm 97:9).

These are two semantic sides of the same conceptual coin. Including other beings in the linguistic domain of “gods” doesn’t put them in the exclusive and unique category that God himself describes.

And to smuggle in radical diminutives, e.g. “for us”, or “as far as we’re concerned”, or “as far as we know”, is sadly to miss the point.

2. Note how God presents his supremacy alongside his gentle shepherding.

His transcendence is the basis for his love and friendship and encouragement:

• “He will tend his flock like a shepherd; he will gather the lambs in his arms; he will carry them in his bosom, and gently lead those that are with young.” (40:11)
• “Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God.” (41:10)
• “For I, the LORD your God, hold your right hand.” (41:13)
• “I am the one who helps you.” (41:14)
• “Even to your old age I am he, and to gray hairs I will carry you.” (46:4)

The big takeaway

It’s good news that God isn’t like us.

It is this God that can save us.

---

If you’re thinking, “too long, didn’t read”, then start here:

Combine Isaiah 43:10 (“Before me no god was formed”) with:

• 40:14 (“Who… taught him knowledge?”)
• 40:11 (“He will tend his flock like a shepherd.”)

Friend,

This is all hard. I am thankful for many good years, but I grieve that you have gone down this path. I am committed to maintaining our friendship, but even that shifts in nature because of the spiritual rift.

As I said earlier, I don’t think LGBTQ / same-sex marriage affirmation is isolated. Marriage and male/female normative sexuality is an integral thread of the fabric of Christianity. To pull that thread out is to quickly unravel the whole cloth.

Its hermeneutic and attitude inevitably bring a package of different positions regarding the verbal inspiration of Scripture, the nature of obedient submission, the creation account and Conquest, the unity of the (c)atholic and historic church, proper shame, “mortification of the flesh,” hell, and atonement. This demonstrably plays out in openly LGBTQ-affirming denominations.

It calls into question the whole arc of the Bible, from protology to eschatology—from the prototype and archetype of Adam and Eve, to the dramatic words of Jesus in Matthew 19 during Holy Week, to the “anti-type” of marriage in Christ (the Groom) and the Church (The Bride). As Robert Gagnon puts it, “To convey the legitimacy of homoerotic unions, a different kind of creation story is needed—the kind of story spun by Aristophanes in Plato’s Symposium where an original male-male, female-female, and male-female are split.”

It celebrates what the Bible dramatically highlights as a sin. To be handed over to same-sex lusts is more than a basis for judgment. It is itself a judgment, according to Paul (Romans 1:23). “Same-sex marriage is good” is a modern variation of “Caesar is Lord,” an expression of a competing loyalty that reflects the spirit of the age—an offering of incense to the cultural gods.

For all these reasons, it is tragically schismatic, unbiblical, and unnatural. I lament that.

I will struggle against it—its claims, its attitudes, its cultural currents, and the spiritual forces behind it—for as long as I live. It grieves me to oppose you in this regard.

Let me be upfront with you: I will pray for you as a prodigal or heretic who should repent and submit your heart, will, and intellect under God’s word. “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him.” (Leviticus 19:17)

I still hope to enjoy other affinities that God has given us, and to maintain good rapport and long-term friendship.

With sincerity of heart,

Aaron

“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.”
– Proverbs 9:10

“If a wise man has an argument with a fool,
the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.”
– Proverbs 29:9

Francis Schaeffer: “This is not a game I am playing.”

“I need to remind myself constantly that this is not a game I am playing.

“If I begin to enjoy it as a kind of intellectual exercise, then I am cruel and can expect no real spiritual results.

“As I push the man off his false balance, he must be able to feel that I care for him. Otherwise I will only end up destroying him, and the cruelty and ugliness of it all will destroy me as well.

“Merely to be abstract and cold is to show that I do not really believe this person to be created in God’s image and therefore one of my kind.”

—Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There (1968), in Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1990), 138.

Gregory of Nazianzus: “It is a serious undertaking.”

“Discussion of theology is not for everyone, I tell you, not for everyone—it is no such inexpensive or effortless pursuit. Nor, I would add, is it for every occasion, or every audience; neither are all its aspects open to inquiry. It must be reserved for certain occasions, for certain audiences, and certain limits must be observed.”

Not for the impure

“It is not for all people, but only for those who have been tested and have found a sound footing in study, and, more importantly, have undergone, or at the very least are undergoing purification of body and soul. For one who is not pure to lay hold of pure things is dangerous, just as it is for weak eyes to look at the sun’s brightness.”

Not for every occasion

“What is the right time? Whenever we are free from the mire and noise without, and our commanding faculty is not confused by illusory, wandering images, leading us, as it were, to mix fine script with ugly scrawling, or sweet-smelling scent with slime. We need actually “to be still” in order to know God, and when we receive the opportunity, ‘to judge uprightly’ in theology.”

Not for the unserious

“Who should listen to discussions of theology? Those for whom it is a serious undertaking, not just another subject like any other for entertaining small-talk, after the races, the theater, songs, food, and sex: for there are people who count chatter on theology and clever deployment of arguments as one of their amusements.”

Not with excess

“What aspects of theology should be investigated, and to what limit? Only aspects within our grasp, and only to the limit of the experience and capacity of our audience. Just as excess of sound or food injures the hearing or general health, or, if you prefer, as loads that are too heavy injure those who carry them, or as excessive rain harms the soil, we too must guard against the danger that the toughness, so to speak, of our discourses may so oppress and overtax our hearers as actually to impair the powers they had before.”

– On God and Christ, The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius: St. Gregory of Nazianzus