Lds Apologetics And The Early Church Fathers

[Spammer]

I have a question prompted by Mike Ash's recent Ensign article about early Christianity and the Restoration. The article cites Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus of Lyon, and Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus in a discussion of the restoration of the doctrine of theosis/deification. Elsewhere, Ash quotes Athanasius of Alexandria for the same purpose. Bickmore and Nibley have also quoted these church fathers. Additionally, some people on this board quoted Nibley who quoted Cyril of Jerusalem to discuss the restoration of the lost washings and anointings ceremony in the temple.

My question is this: why do LDS apologists quote Orthodox/Catholic church fathers as evidence that original teachings were lost and restored by Joseph Smith? I don't understand the rationale. Regarding theosis, it seems that Ash and the rest would prefer to quote an ancient church father who believed that 1) God is a glorified, exalted man and that 2) in and through Christ, we can become just as He is. Instead, they quote trinitarians. Is it because Ash et al are unaware that the quoted church fathers are all Orthodox/Catholic in their teaching? I can't imagine that Nibley would get that wrong. Or, are they instead aware of those church fathers' trinitarianism but think that although the cited church fathers are trinitarians, their writings still preserve lost teachings? Or is it something else I'm not seeing? What's the rationale? It seems strange that LDS apologists would quote Catholic and Orthodox church fathers. In my mind, quoting these fathers' writings as evidence of lost teachings only goes to show that those teachings were never lost in the first place. Maybe I'm missing a key piece of the rationale, here.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Spammer

[Damien the Leper]

You need to understand that while they are Catholic [the ECFs] are not Roman Catholic. There is a difference. Theosis was not ever a lost teaching. Theosis is far from an exclusive LDS teaching. Mike Ash did well in his article.

[Spammer]

Are you suggesting that the RCC originally did not teach theosis? Does the restoration claim only apply to the RCC and its offshoots?

In my reading, Ash's argument was that Joseph Smith restored lost teachings and his article provided a list of such teachings, one of which was theosis. Ash runs through the list, then says "These and other authentic ancient Christian teachings were restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith because he sought the Lord in study and prayer...Teachings which had been lost after the demise of the early Apostles were once again given to the Saints of Christ’s restored Church." It seems clear that Ash thinks the teaching of theosis was lost. So, why is he quoting trinitarians as evidence that the LDS doctrine of theosis was taught in the early church before the demise of the Apostles?

Edited May 13, 2013 by Spammer

[Damien the Leper]

Many of the ECFs came before the RCC. Catholic is a generalized term referring to the body of believers. I do not believe that the RCC ever taught theosis as doctrinal. Another teaching could be anthropomorphism. Origen taught this but was later condemned for heresy. His condemnation was spear headed by Epiphanius is the 4th century, IIRC. The teachings were never actually lost. They were more or less denounced and condemned or just swept under the rug. Rather than restoring the teachings, I believe Joseph Smith was used to shed light on ancient belief that had been de-emphasized. Also, theosis and anthropomorphism appears to be absent in the apostolic writings. The only exception I can think of is John 10:34 and how it relates to Psalm 82:6. Other than that, there doesn't seem to be a connection of the teachings by the ECFs and the apostles.

[ChristKnight]

You need to understand that while they are Catholic [the ECFs] are not Roman Catholic. There is a difference. Theosis was not ever a lost teaching. Theosis is far from an exclusive LDS teaching. Mike Ash did well in his article.

From my reading of Mike Ash's Ensign article, he is stating that certain beliefs were taught and believed anciently, but were then lost. In the beginning of it, he states-

"The Restoration not only reestablished the original Church of Jesus Christ but also reestablished teachings that had been lost."

He then refers to a few teachings and practices that "distinguish Latter-day Saints from other modern Christians are now known to have been believed and practiced by the early Christians as well."

It seems that Spammer's point is that at least in the case of theosis, such a teaching was never "lost" (since it is taught and believed in in the Orthodox Church that he belongs to), and that Clement and the other ECFs referred to were more traditional/orthodox than closer to the LDS perspective.

As to the OP, I think that LDS typically view this as showing that while the apostasy was already in full force by the time the ECFs were around, and that the corruption and changing of various beliefs and ordinances had already begun and taken hold, echoes of true beliefs and practices can be found in the ECF writings, things that Joseph Smith and his associates most likely could not have known. I think that's the point of LDS referring to such writings.

[ChristKnight]

I do not believe that the RCC ever taught theosis as doctrinal.

Catechism of the Catholic Church-

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":"For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

Prayer in the Roman Rite liturgy-

"By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity."

Among other examples.

[mercyngrace]

I have a question prompted by Mike Ash's recent Ensign article about early Christianity and the Restoration. The article cites Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus of Lyon, and Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus in a discussion of the restoration of the doctrine of theosis/deification. Elsewhere, Ash quotes Athanasius of Alexandria for the same purpose. Bickmore and Nibley have also quoted these church fathers. Additionally, some people on this board quoted Nibley who quoted Cyril of Jerusalem to discuss the restoration of the lost washings and anointings ceremony in the temple.

My question is this: why do LDS apologists quote Orthodox/Catholic church fathers as evidence that original teachings were lost and restored by Joseph Smith? I don't understand the rationale. Regarding theosis, it seems that Ash and the rest would prefer to quote an ancient church father who believed that 1) God is a glorified, exalted man and that 2) in and through Christ, we can become just as He is. Instead, they quote trinitarians. Is it because Ash et al are unaware that the quoted church fathers are all Orthodox/Catholic in their teaching? I can't imagine that Nibley would get that wrong. Or, are they instead aware of those church fathers' trinitarianism but think that although the cited church fathers are trinitarians, their writings still preserve lost teachings? Or is it something else I'm not seeing? What's the rationale? It seems strange that LDS apologists would quote Catholic and Orthodox church fathers. In my mind, quoting these fathers' writings as evidence of lost teachings only goes to show that those teachings were never lost in the first place. Maybe I'm missing a key piece of the rationale, here.

I've encountered some of my fellow Mormons who seem to be under the same impression that you are, namely, that at the death of the apostles, the lights simply went out.

That is never how apostasy works.

It is a gradual process, the mirror image of conversion.

Remember the old math/logic question, "How far can a man walk into the woods? Halfway, because after that, he's walking out."

We have walked into the darkness. We are walking out. Dimming either increases or decreases depending on your heading. But there's only one "out of the forest" and you're not there, until you are.

Edited May 14, 2013 by mercyngrace

[Damien the Leper]

Catechism of the Catholic Church-

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":"For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

Prayer in the Roman Rite liturgy-

"By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity."

Among other examples.

Sweet...thank you for the correction. I also get what said in response to me previously and appreciate your insight. Thank you.

[Spammer]

Christknight, I agree, the 'echoes of lost doctrines' thesis is a common LDS approach to the ECF's writings. I don't think Ash uses this kind of argument in the Ensign article, however, but rather seems to assert that the unique doctrines in question were completely lost, requiring a restoration through revelation. He cites ECFs as evidence that those lost teachings once existed. I just find it ironic that, in his effort to show that the pre-Apostasy church taught the unique LDS theosis doctrine (God is a glorified, exalted man and we can be like Him), Ash cites ECFs that teach the Catholic and Orthodox trinitarian view of theosis. I wonder if he is aware he's doing this? The problem is that a Mormon reader unacquainted with the patristic literature will read Ash's article and find nothing to dissuade him from concluding "Hey! Clement, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus believed what I believe about how we can become like Heavenly Father. Cool!" At the very least, Ash ought to have clarified that the ECFs he cited did not share the LDS view of the nature of God, which makes a world of difference. This doesn't seem a very scholarly approach on his part. Of course, this assumes he is aware that those ECFs were trinitarians. Maybe he isn't.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Spammer

[Spammer]

The teachings were never actually lost. They were more or less denounced and condemned or just swept under the rug. Rather than restoring the teachings, I believe Joseph Smith was used to shed light on ancient belief that had been de-emphasized.

Neither the RCC nor the Orthodox churches denounced or condemned theosis or swept it under the rug. It receives more attention in Orthdoxy, but it is just as doctrinal in Roman Catholicism. This has always been the case.

[Robert F. Smith]

Christknight, I agree, the 'echoes of lost doctrines' thesis is a common LDS approach to the ECF's writings. I don't think Ash uses this kind of argument in the Ensign article, however, but rather seems to assert that the unique doctrines in question were completely lost, requiring a restoration through revelation. He cites ECFs as evidence that those lost teachings once existed. I just find it ironic that, in his effort to show that the pre-Apostasy church taught the unique LDS theosis doctrine (God is a glorified, exalted man and we can be like Him), Ash cites ECFs that teach the Catholic and Orthodox trinitarian view of theosis. I wonder if he is aware he's doing this? The problem is that a Mormon reader unacquainted with the patristic literature will read Ash's article and find nothing to dissuade him from concluding "Hey! Clement, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus believed what I believe about how we can become like Heavenly Father. Cool!" At the very least, Ash ought to have clarified that the ECFs he cited did not share the LDS view of the nature of God, which makes a world of difference. This doesn't seem a very scholarly approach on his part. Of course, this assumes he is aware that those ECFs were trinitarians. Maybe he isn't.

Ash is merely expressing his opinion on some limited issues in light of the fact that most Christians in the USA are Protestant and most certainly do not believe in the LDS version of apotheosis -- if not outright rejecting it as the work of heretical "Godmakers." Moreover, as you observe here, the Early Church Fathers do not share the LDS view of the nature of God. Thus, their commitment to a particular trinitarian creed makes their version of apotheosis somewhat alien to the LDS version. In that context, arguing that something has been restored takes on certain nuances of description, which you may not find wholly satisfactory.

To depict the Orthodox and Roman Catholic faiths of today as the result of a continuous stream of tradition without any change is clearly false. At the same time, not everything was changed either. The process of gradual and sometimes even wrenching conciliar change took place over a very long period of time. Yet, even at that, Christianity still has great power to convert and convince people that Jesus was truly extraordinary and admirable. What that means is certainly a matter of controversy, and the LDS faith will continue to reject the Hellenistic baggage acquired by mainstream Christianity, and which can be found as the fundamental basis of normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim dogma. Apotheosis is meaningless within that dogmatic structure.

[Spammer]

Ash is merely expressing his opinion on some limited issues in light of the fact that most Christians in the USA are Protestant and most certainly do not believe in the LDS version of apotheosis -- if not outright rejecting it as the work of heretical "Godmakers." Moreover, as you observe here, the Early Church Fathers do not share the LDS view of the nature of God. Thus, their commitment to a particular trinitarian creed makes their version of apotheosis somewhat alien to the LDS version. In that context, arguing that something has been restored takes on certain nuances of description, which you may not find wholly satisfactory.

Thanks for the reply. I agree with you that developments within the orthodox tradition were long-term, gradual, and often wrenching. The conflict produced during 4th century christological debates, in particular, is a fascinating (and often grim) part of Christian history. Those conflicts still play out today in the Church of the Nativity, of all places. Monks from different traditions occasionally battle each other with brooms in a turf war. Any organization populated by sinful humans, however divine the institution, will be loaded with problems. It's important to understand the complexities and nuances. If only those nuanced descriptions you mentioned were in evidence in Ash's article. Instead, the quoted ECFs are portrayed as if they believed in the LDS version of apotheosis. I find that this is quite common in the Ensign, Deseret News, Fair, etc. when the ECF's are quoted. The echoes thesis is a less misleading use of the sources, IMO. Regardless, I still find it ironic (and problematic) that LDS apologists use sources from an alien creed as evidence that unique LDS teachings were taught before the Apostasy. I do understand why those sources are used, though. Any historical claim needs at least some documentary evidence to be minimally persuasive.

I appreciate the replies.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Spammer

[Stone holm]

There is a corolary theme which the Church sometimes uses and that is that various people of differing belief, or no belief, were still persons being influenced by God to "prepare the way." Under this argument, you can bring in the Founding Fathers of the United States into the Restorations fold even though they were Deists who were very sceptical of organized religion, or felt that organized religion was just plain false. For example under this line of thinking, it is quite acceptable to see Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin as instruments of God preparing the way for the Restoration. Going back further under this line of argument you have key players in the Reformation, many of whom had beliefs that were nor where near our beliefs, being nevertheless seen as "preparers of the way", by destroying the stranglehold of the Roman Catholic Church. I believe there is actually some sound reasoning in these arguments, so long as you do not indulge in faux history and try to make the American Founding Fathers out as a bunch of pious religious fanatics as part of a national American myth.

[Stone holm]

I have a question prompted by Mike Ash's recent Ensign article about early Christianity and the Restoration. The article cites Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus of Lyon, and Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus in a discussion of the restoration of the doctrine of theosis/deification. Elsewhere, Ash quotes Athanasius of Alexandria for the same purpose. Bickmore and Nibley have also quoted these church fathers. Additionally, some people on this board quoted Nibley who quoted Cyril of Jerusalem to discuss the restoration of the lost washings and anointings ceremony in the temple.

My question is this: why do LDS apologists quote Orthodox/Catholic church fathers as evidence that original teachings were lost and restored by Joseph Smith? I don't understand the rationale. Regarding theosis, it seems that Ash and the rest would prefer to quote an ancient church father who believed that 1) God is a glorified, exalted man and that 2) in and through Christ, we can become just as He is. Instead, they quote trinitarians. Is it because Ash et al are unaware that the quoted church fathers are all Orthodox/Catholic in their teaching? I can't imagine that Nibley would get that wrong. Or, are they instead aware of those church fathers' trinitarianism but think that although the cited church fathers are trinitarians, their writings still preserve lost teachings? Or is it something else I'm not seeing? What's the rationale? It seems strange that LDS apologists would quote Catholic and Orthodox church fathers. In my mind, quoting these fathers' writings as evidence of lost teachings only goes to show that those teachings were never lost in the first place. Maybe I'm missing a key piece of the rationale, here.

What month was that article?

[Darren10]

What month was that article?

This may be it: The Restoration and Early Christian Teachings

[Darren10]

Spammer;

I just read through the article in question and as linked in my #15 post. I hope that the article linked is the article in reference to this thread. Assuming it is here's my comments.

The early Christian Fathers which Ash cites are: Iraneaus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Hippolyptus of Portus. All of these fathers are pre Nicea and therefore predate the trinitarian formulae which began in the fourth century. Therefore, these fathers being trinitarian believers is questionable.

As for the subject matter Ash raises, they are, as titles: 1) "Our Premortal Life" 2) "Salvation for the Dead" 3) "Degrees of Glory" and 4) "Heirs to the Father". This makes me curious. How much of these doctrines, would you say, have been preserved in traditional curches and particularly in the Greek Orthodox Church which since you belong to makes me very interested in your response. I really do enjoy learning the theology of other denominations so whatever insights you can share I'd appreciate.

As a conclusion, Ash writes,

Thanks to the restoration of these lost teachings, we rejoice with the early Christian Saints in the knowledge that we once lived a premortal life with our Heavenly Father. We know that God is merciful and loves all humankind and has established a plan so that every one of His children will have the opportunity to hear the gospel and receive the ordinances of salvation—even if they never had the chance while in mortality. We also learn that Heavenly Father expects us to participate in the work of bringing salvation to those who died without hearing the good news.

How much would you say traditional Christian churches share in that conclusion? Particularly in the reception of ordinances among the dead?

[Stone holm]

Christknight, I agree, the 'echoes of lost doctrines' thesis is a common LDS approach to the ECF's writings. I don't think Ash uses this kind of argument in the Ensign article, however, but rather seems to assert that the unique doctrines in question were completely lost, requiring a restoration through revelation. He cites ECFs as evidence that those lost teachings once existed. I just find it ironic that, in his effort to show that the pre-Apostasy church taught the unique LDS theosis doctrine (God is a glorified, exalted man and we can be like Him), Ash cites ECFs that teach the Catholic and Orthodox trinitarian view of theosis. I wonder if he is aware he's doing this? The problem is that a Mormon reader unacquainted with the patristic literature will read Ash's article and find nothing to dissuade him from concluding "Hey! Clement, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus believed what I believe about how we can become like Heavenly Father. Cool!" At the very least, Ash ought to have clarified that the ECFs he cited did not share the LDS view of the nature of God, which makes a world of difference. This doesn't seem a very scholarly approach on his part. Of course, this assumes he is aware that those ECFs were trinitarians. Maybe he isn't.

Some of the quotes can be ambiguous depending on whether you believe in an anthropomorphic God as we do or something more gaseous like.

[BCSpace]

My question is this: why do LDS apologists quote Orthodox/Catholic church fathers as evidence that original teachings were lost and restored by Joseph Smith? I don't understand the rationale.

It is evident to me that most, if not all, the doctrines unique and/or critical to the LDS Church were present in the pre Catholic church and that they disappeared over a few hundred years which is exactly what one would expect if there was an apostasy and restoration.

[Stone holm]

It is evident to me that most, if not all, the doctrines unique and/or critical to the LDS Church were present in the pre Catholic church and that they disappeared over a few hundred years which is exactly what one would expect if there was an apostasy and restoration.

Is that based on this article, or on other research. I suspect you are right, but not sure that the quotes in the Article necessarily get you there.

[Darren10]

Some of the quotes can be ambiguous depending on whether you believe in an anthropomorphic God as we do or something more gaseous like.

Then there's anthropomorphic beings who can also be gaseous.

[Stone holm]

Then there's anthropomorphic beings who can also be gaseous.

Tis true, I always am reminded of the great line of George Burns in "Oh God" , when he says tell them I am not gas.

[Bernard Gui]

I've encountered some of my fellow Mormons who seem to be under the same impression that you are, namely, that at the death of the apostles, the lights simply went out.

That is never how apostasy works.

It is a gradual process, the mirror image of conversion.

One essential light did go out....the keys of the priesthood were lost at the death of the last apostle.

That means, Amen to the priesthood authority on earth. The keys were restored by Peter,

James, and John.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[Ahab]

Many of the ECFs came before the RCC. Catholic is a generalized term referring to the body of believers. I do not believe that the RCC ever taught theosis as doctrinal. Another teaching could be anthropomorphism. Origen taught this but was later condemned for heresy. His condemnation was spear headed by Epiphanius is the 4th century, IIRC. The teachings were never actually lost. They were more or less denounced and condemned or just swept under the rug. Rather than restoring the teachings, I believe Joseph Smith was used to shed light on ancient belief that had been de-emphasized. Also, theosis and anthropomorphism appears to be absent in the apostolic writings. The only exception I can think of is John 10:34 and how it relates to Psalm 82:6. Other than that, there doesn't seem to be a connection of the teachings by the ECFs and the apostles.

Yes, just like true gospel doctrine is still in the Bible even though Joseph Smith is said to have restored the gospel. It's not like he needed to add to the scriptures in the Bible. The Bible itself is enough to let us know what the true gospel is. It just needs to be taught as it was meant to be taught. The Book of Mormon is simply another testament of the gospel in the Bible.

[Bernard Gui]

Yes, just like true gospel doctrine is still in the Bible even though Joseph Smith is said to have restored the gospel. It's not like he needed to add to the scriptures in the Bible. The Bible itself is enough to let us know what the true gospel is. It just needs to be taught as it was meant to be taught. The Book of Mormon is simply another testament of the gospel in the Bible.

Essential elements of the gospel are absent from the Bible, or at least obscure enough as to be hard to implement. For example, the temple covenants, exaltation, organization and functions of the priesthood, baptism and the Gifts of the Holy Ghost. Evidence of the insufficiency of the Bible is the vast divisions among Christian over just such doctrines.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[Ahab]

Essential elements of the gospel are absent from the Bible, or at least obscure enough as to be hard to implement. For example, the temple covenants, exaltation, organization and functions of the priesthood, baptism and the Gifts of the Holy Ghost. Evidence of the insufficiency of the Bible is the vast divisions among Christian over just such doctrines.

I was talking about the gospel, itself, rather than every detail regarding the "appendages" to it, but even so everything you mentioned is mentioned in the Bible.

The most important idea is that through the gift of the Holy Ghost, which all people can receive with the help of those who have the proper authority from God, we can know the truth of all things including all that is necessary for salvation and exaltation.