I have just written this down in my book of Injured English. The MinH is a known uncertainty? How about an unknown uncertainty?

Hehe. I almost commented on the phrase in my post – noting immediately the irony of it. I suppose it goes along the lines of “The more I learn the more I know about that which I don’t know.” :)

I believe that it is a contingent matter that the Father is the one who is the source of light, life, intelligence, power, spirit and energy that deifies other; but it happens to be revealed that the Father was the most intelligent one who draws all other intelligences to his ever-growing and ever-increasing love.

“Now what has that got to do with embodiment?”, you may ask? What makes us divine isn’t having a particular type of body. It is being glorified by a certain level of light. The Father is always progressing, always growing. Taking on bodies of various sorts (spirit bodies, physical bodies) seems to be a part of that ever-ongoing progress. The body gives us challenges and opportunities to learn and grow that we wouldn’t have without it. So I imagine after we have taken a resurrected body, there will yet be other types of bodies, even more glories, that we may assume and that will assist us in our everlasting progress.

I’m not sure if an intelligence is embodied in some sense. It may be, but I don’t see anything in our scriptures or stated by Joseph Smith that requires it. It may be that a spirit body just is the same thing as an intelligence — Joseph Smith (as I am sure you’re aware) seemed to use the terms “eternal spirit” and “eternal intelligence” interchangeably as synonyms.

It is clear (to me at least) that possession of a resurrected and exalted body is not essential to being fully divine because the pre-mortal Christ was fully divine. That doesn’t mean that he couldn’t progress and grow and even gain greater glory by having a body; but it does mean that having a body isn’t essential to such deity and Godhead.

I would have a hard time coming up with a distinction between exaltation and deification or fully mature divinity (what I believe the scriptures, Joseph Smith and the LonF called “a fullness”). However, if there is one, it could be that to have eternal increase of offspring and eternal family is to be exalted and one can be fully divine without having such an eternal family. However, it seems to me that Joseph Smith didn’t make that distinction — and I don’t really either.

However, having said all of that, I am in total agreement that Mormon discourse uses “divine” and “exalted” and “God” and “gods” equivocally. However, in my writings I have defined what I mean more closely than in common discourse to avoid confusion and equivocation.

Do you think there are certain perfections necessary to be God but that none deal with embodiment?

There’s an interesting question here regarding the issue of God as fallen. Admittedly Mormon Christology entails some significant differences from other Christians. But it seems like you are pushing things in an even stronger way, oddly some moving you more towards BY’s position and others the more traditional Christian view..

Ahhhh! He clearly doesn’t if by “body” you mean exalted resurrected body!

In any case, the most important word to me in #160 is this “Maybe.” I agree with you whole heartedly on that.

Matt: “it is totally reasonable that two other beings could be in unity without being in unity with the individual who is the Father and the same power would emerge from them.”

Maybe, but it just so happens to be revealed that the 3 who are the source of the light are the Father, Son & Holy Ghost. There is no chance that these 3 are not working with all to achieve deification and so no being could or would become divine without their being involved. It isn’t like they don’t notice or they’re just not paying attention.

Matt: “The God of the Old Testament was Heavenly Father. Not Jesus. Stating otherwise is merely an instance of cultural over-belief.”

Well, 3 Ne. disagrees with you: 3 Nephi 15:5
5 Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted
with my people Israel; therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for
I have come to fulfil the law; therefore it hath an end.

God now has a body of flesh and bone (and had at the time that Joseph Smith stated that there is no other God but the one with a body of flesh and bone). Thus, Joseph’s statement is easily explained.

Re: Emergence. If the power is emergent from the unity, then it is totally reasonable that two other beings could be in unity without being in unity with the individual who is the Father and the same power would emerge from them. If your point is they would thus be also in unity with the Father, then, given there are an infinite number of beings, and an infinite amount of time has past, and God the Father had a God the Father, then there are other beings who are up there.

Re: my comment #77- I sited in #77- “We choose tabernacles for ourselves that we might be exalted equal with God himself”. RE the Holy Ghost, see my beginning to this comment.

The God of the Old Testament was Heavenly Father. Not Jesus. Stating otherwise is merely an instance of cultural over-belief.