I like to see that God is distinct from us but our collective humanity is the best way to perceive and understand Him. His work, after all, is to redeem us ultimately in a new earth, a new humanity, a new Heaven, a new Jerusalem. I think theosis in Patristic tradition (and sounding similar to Ostler’s) is inspiring to ponder what human joint heirship with God could mean. I find the more exciting thought is to ponder why God would become Man.

God’s masculine pronouns aside, I see the Father as the dominant personhood of God who is spirit and not of the human species, drawing humanity with both masculine and feminine natures. I see “female” and “male” predominant gender characteristics as something that is wholly unified and perfected in God’s nature — and not that feminine nature is beneath or apart from God or separately embodied in a not-to-be-discussed Goddess Mother. (This is influenced in part by Jewish mystic tradition and in part of my reading of the Genesis allegory.)

I think the personhood of Jesus is the way through which God interrelates in predominant “masculine” action with humanity and the personhood of the Spirit interrelating in predominant “feminine” action with humanity. I see humanness — in its broader community, possibilities and hopes — as a tangible “entity” through which individuals can draw outward from themselves and also upward toward God.

This somewhat abstracted intellectual commitment, yet very spiritual and emotional hope in a literal Triune God, is not Mormon nor completely mainstream Evangelical, either. But it’s not that original nor alien to Christian tradition.

“My mother used to be one of Pres. McKay’s secretary’s, and she can tell some fascinating stories of how the First Presdency at the time interacted. My wife and I are close to opposite personalities in many ways – which makes us perfect for each other as we try to become whole and complete as one. I also have been intrigued by the group dynamics that keep many Mormon group blogs generally more civil than most other sites I’ve visited.

I view unity based on these experiences, but also based on the Sermon on the Mount – where “perfect” is defined as “complete” or “whole” – not as mistake free. In all seriousness, I believe there is an inherent conflict in the way that too many members view unity as an ideal. I prefer to think of it in terms that I think are taught in the Gospels and that formed the foundation of Joseph Smith’s efforts – by talking of communal unity [“community”] (a societal completeness and wholeness of unique but united individuals) as opposed to the “sameness” of most worldly definitions.”

I really need to read Blake Ostler sometime.

That would allow for different genders to remain the same. We would all share one mind, and have access to feminine and masculine without losing that characteristic.

#3 Doc, How does this all gut the meaning of being born again, having His image in our countenance and being filled with God’s love? I think it supports those ideas. Those ideas could be describing this merger.

I think the short version is that a merging with God is literal, but it is a merging/synchronizing/unifying of moral will. A complete oneness of moral will would mean there is exactly one “God” but many individuals that are part of God. (Not unlike the Trinity doctrine but minus the mysticism and contradictions. I’ve always claimed that the Trinity doctrine is close to true.)

Thinking of God in this manner works for me because it does not violate the basis for monotheism but avoids the problems of loss of individuality because personal preference would never be an issue on in all situations outside of the “one moral will” concept. (i.e. I can enjoy fishing and you can enjoy football so long as I want you to enjoy football and you want me to enjoy fishing, etc. Thus you can be “one” and “individual” at the same time without a contradiction.)

Anyhow, this is how I picture it mentally.

So, given the whole eternal gender concept we have in the Church, how does merging with God sort out with women, if God is male?

“Perfect Unity“

More importantly, your interpretation guts the meaning to me of one of the most important scriptures in the New Testament. It’s about Zion, receiving his image in our countenance, being born again and filled with his love. It has real application to us in the here and now, as we can come to know the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom he has sent by becoming like them right here in the present. It is about becoming something embodied and truly divine, not some personless ethereal ooze collective.