From my dear friend and fellow researcher Edward "Ted" Jones
James White refused to deal with the subject of LDS thought and the early Christian concept of deification. He stated that the Latter-day Saint concept of deity was not remotely similar to that taught in the early Church, and consequently deification could have no resemblance to the LDS concept of exaltation. Therefore, something needs to be said regarding the nature of deity as it was taught in the early Church. A good beginning can be had by examining what the Church Fathers had to say about Genesis 1.26 (‘Let us make man in our image’). Gerald Bray, British evangelical scholar, has recently discussed at some length this statement, suggesting that an “awkward question is raised by [its] use of the plural…implying as it does that man, as the image of God, somehow reflects a plurality in God. Here, there is no unanimity among interpreters. All are agreed that the Israelite God is One, and that the use of the plural here cannot imply polytheism.” He says that it is “more probable…that God is here speaking to the heavenly hosts, though this raises such questions as … whether angels took part in the work of man’s creation.” After citing Ps 8.5-6 (‘God made man a little lower than the angels’, which is quoted
 Gerald Bray, ‘The Significance of God’s Image in Man,’ Tyndale Bulletin 42 (1991): 195-225, at 197.
 Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Fortress press 1989): 71: “Between the Masoretic [Hebrew] Text and the [Greek Septuagint] the only major difference [in this Psalm] is in the designation of the beings to whom the human being is subjected. The psalmist speaks of ‘gods,’ which the [Septuagint] translates as ‘angels.’” Attridge, Professor at the University of Notre Dame, comments in the footnote to this: “These beings were no doubt understood as the members of the heavenly court,” referring us further to Gerald Cooke, “The Sons of (the) God(s),” Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 76 (1964): 22-47; Frank M. Cross, “The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 12 (1953): 274-77; also to Psalm 82.1; 86.8; 89.6, 8. See further, James D.G. Dunn, The Christ and the Spirit, Volume I: Christology (Eerdmans 1998): 436, where he contrasts the Hebrew and Greek versions. In his Christology in the Making, Dunn glosses over the situation by stating that the Septuagint “differs slightly from the masoretic [Hebrew] text,” 309, n. 46. Markus Bockmuehl has recently referred to this ‘translation’ in his “’The Form of God’ (Phil. 2.6), Variations on a Theme of Jewish Mysticism,” Journal of Theological Studies 48 (1997): 1-23, at page 13, note 33. See the recent translation and discussion by Alistair G. Hunter, Psalms (London 1999): 159-71. Nicolas Wyatt, “’Supposing Him to be the Gardener’ (John 20.15). A Study of the Paradise Motif in John,” ZNTW 81 (1990): 32 retains the Hebrew elohim.
 Bray, op. cit., 198. Cooke, in the article cited in previous note, also rejects the ‘plural of majesty,’ page 22. Contrary to this a recent article in a Catholic magazine rejects the LDS doctrine of deity in part because Gen 1.26 ‘obviously’ referred to the royal ‘we’ rather than to the presence of two individuals, one of whom may have been speaking to the other; Brian Paul, “Looking for God in all the wrong places…like Kolob,” Envoy (March/April 1999): 32-37, at page 35. The mission statement of Envoy Magazine, of which Patrick Madrid is the editor, reads in part: “In light of the serious inroads by proselytizing sects, Envoy’s main goal is to prepare Catholics to ‘be always ready to give a reason for the hope that is in you’ (I Peter 3.15).” Isaiah Bennett, although citing several different options for the meaning of Gen. 1.26, and claiming that any of them could be valid, declares that the LDS interpretation is wrong. This is the old “we don’t know what this difficult verse means, but we know for a fact that whatever the Mormons declare it to mean is wrong.” To paraphrase Patrick Madrid’s statement quoted above (at note 10), as biblical exegesis this bromide is useless; Bennett, Inside Mormonism, 254.
 Bray, “Significance,” op. cit., 199. Bockmuehl reminds us that the Greek version of Gen. 3.5-6, to which 3.22 refers, translates the Hebrew ‘like God’ into the plural ‘like gods,’ in Bockmuehl, “’The form of God’ (Phil 2.6),” Journal of Theological Studies 48 (1997): 9.
 Neuner-Dupuis, The Christian Faith, paragraph 7. The same theme is present in the creed generated by the Council of Constantinople (381): ibid., paragraph 12
 R.M. Wilson, “The Early History of the Exegesis of Gen. 1.26,” Studia Patristica 1. (1955): 420-37, at 421, 431, 435. Quasten, Patrology 1.294-5 gives Irenaeus’ references as Adv Haer 5.1.3; 5.5.1; 5.28.1.
 C. F. A. Borchardt, Hilary of Poitiers’ Role in the Arian Struggles (Gravenhage 1966): 55-59. See Hilary, De Trinitate 4.16-7f.
 James D.G. Dunn, Christology in the Making, 105. See also Dunn, The Christ and the Spirit. I: Christology (Eerdmans 1998): 322: “From earliest times we have ‘the sons of God’ who are members of the heavenly council under Yahweh the supreme God”, with reference to Genesis 6.2, 4; Deut 32.8; Job 1.6-12; 2.1-6; 38.7; Psal 29.1; 89.6; I Enoch 13.8; 106.5; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 1.78; and T.H. Gaster in Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible 1.131. ‘Magisterial’ is from Barnabas Lindars, “Christ and Salvation,” The Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library 64 (1982): 481. On the ‘heavenly council,’ cf. Simon B. Parker, “The Beginning of the Reign of God—Psalm 82 as Myth and Liturgy,” Revue Biblique 102 (1995): 532-559, with bibliographical references; W.S. Prinsloo, “Psalm 82: Once Again, Gods or Men?,” Biblica (Rome) 76 (1995): 219-228; John Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea. Echoes of a Canaanite myth in the Old Testament (Cambridge 1985); and Peggy L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven: Satan in the Hebrew Bible (Harvard 1988); also the references cited in Attridge, Hebrews (Fortress): 71, note 21, cited above. Cf. Edward T. Jones, “A Comparative Study of Ascension Motifs in World Religions,” in Deity and Death, edited by Spencer J. Palmer (BYU 1978): 79-105, at page 81f. ‘Counsel’ in the three references at the bottom of page 81 (Amos 3.7 and Jer 23.21-2) ought to have been printed ‘council,’ in accordance with the sources cited there. On the divine council see also Bryan D. Spinks, The Sanctus in the Eucharistic Prayer(Cambridge University Press 1991): 11-13, with its application to Isaiah 6, at page 14 ff. With reference to Amos 3.7 see Markus Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity (Eerdmans 1990): 15, where he states that the relevant term [Hebrew: sodh] has reference to a “fellowship of intimate friends taking counsel [for action],” with Amos 3.7 referring to the divine council/fellowship or the secret plan devised by it.
 J. A. Lyons, The Cosmic Christ in Origen and Teilhard de Chardin (Oxford 1982): 115, referring to Contra Celsum 5.37. Cf. A.J. Hobbel, “The Imago Dei in the writings of Origen,” Studia Patristica 21 (1989): 301.
 L.W. Barnard, “The Logos Theology of Saint Justin Martyr,” Downside Review 89 (1971): 135, citing Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 1.62. Marcel Simon draws attention to the same point, bringing together Gen. 1.26 with 3.22, in Simon, “The Bible in the Earliest Controversies between Jews and Christians,” in The Bible in Greek Christian Antiquity, ed. and tr. Paul M. Blowers (Notre Dame 1997): 62.
 Jaroslav Pelikan, Jesus Through the Centuries (Harper and Row 1985): 90; also at 62, citing Basil.
 Teachings of the Catholic Church, ed. George D. Smith (New York 1949; 1st 1927), 1.115.
 R.P.C. Hanson, Allegory and Event. A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture (London 1959): 120, quoting from Justin, Dialogue 129.2. In his footnote to this Hanson also refers to Theophilus, ad Autolycum 2.18: God is speaking to His Son; and Irenaeus AH 4.34.1.
 Quasten, Patrology 1.87; cf. R.M. Wilson, op. cit., 426-7. Translation in Early Christian Writings, by Maxwell Staniforth (Penguin Books 1975): 198, 201. Also referred to in David T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature. A Survey (Fortress Press 1993): 91, note 2, where he also refers to Justin, Dialogue 62.1; Basil’s agreement is mentioned at page 207; Tertullian’s at page 278.
 J.N. Rowe, “Origin’s Subordinationism as illustrated in his commentary on St. John’s Gospel,” Studia Patristica 11 (1972): 222.
 Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 11.16, in Edward Yarnold, S.J., Cyril of Jerusalem (London 2000): 135. Cyril’s other arguments regarding the ‘oneness’ of Father and Son are that they are one “in respect of the dignity of godhead… in respect of kingship… and because there is no disharmony or disagreement between them,” all of which accord well with the LDS concept that there are two Beings involved, as partners, though one is Father, the other is Son. In Catechesis 11.23 Cyril says that the words of Gen. 1.26 “were evidently spoken to someone present,” and again quotes Psalm 145.8 LXX (or perhaps Ps 33.9).