Great Apostasy revisited

[telnetd]

19 hours ago, InCognitus said:

“Learn this also: The bodies of men have immortal souls, which have been clothed with the breath of God; and having come forth from God, they are of the same substance, but they are not gods. But if they are gods, then in this way the souls of all men, both those who have died, and those who are alive, and those who shall come into being, are gods. But if in a spirit of controversy you maintain that these also are gods, what great matter is it, then, for Christ to be called God? for He has only what all have.”  (Clementine Homily 16, chapter 16)

Immortal men and women (as souls) are gods before being born to heavenly parents?

[telnetd]

21 hours ago, teddyaware said:

This issue isn’t as cut and dried as you’d like to think it is. Your ‘ah ha moment’ is deprived of its impact due to the following canonized revelation found in Section 93 of the Doctrine and Covenants. In this Section, Jesus Christ himself testifies that he is indeed the Word with the same intended sense of meaning employed by John (please note that the date of the reception of Doctrine and Covenants 93 is at least one year after his earlier attempt to illuminate the meaning of John 1:1 that you referenced). 

4 The Father because he gave me of his fulness, and the Son because I was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men.

 

When and how?

[InCognitus]

35 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Immortal men and women (as souls) are gods before being born to heavenly parents?

The spirits of men and women (which are sometimes called "souls") are the "kind" of being that God is, all the time.  What it means to be "gods" is relative to that, and obviously not clearly defined as it was shown in that quote from the early Christian writings of Clementine Homilies.

[InCognitus]

37 minutes ago, telnetd said:

When and how?

"O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (John 17:5)  And, "the glory which thou gavest me I have given them" (John 17:22), and "Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world." (John 17:24)

[telnetd]

23 hours ago, InCognitus said:

"O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (John 17:5)  And, "the glory which thou gavest me I have given them" (John 17:22), and "Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world." (John 17:24)

What glory did Jesus have before he was born to his heavenly mother?

[telnetd]

23 hours ago, InCognitus said:

The spirits of men and women (which are sometimes called "souls") are the "kind" of being that God is, all the time.  What it means to be "gods" is relative to that, and obviously not clearly defined as it was shown in that quote from the early Christian writings of Clementine Homilies.

When do spirits of men and women become gods?

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

What glory did Jesus have before he was born to his heavenly mother?

Obviously not the same glory that God the Father "gave" to Jesus, as Jesus says in John 17:5, 22 and 24.

The early Christians spoke of Jesus receiving these things only after he was begotten by the Father, i.e. "the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him" (Origen's Commentary on John, book 2 chapter 3).

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

When do spirits of men and women become gods?

Depends on your point of view.  Jesus called men gods in John 10:34-35, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken."

But many of the early Christians considered it a process of "becoming", like what St. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD) taught in is work Refutation Book 10 Ch. 29:  "For if He had willed to make thee a god, He could have done so. Thou hast the example of the Logos. His will, however, was, that you should be a man, and He has made thee a man. But if thou art desirous of also becoming a god, obey Him that has created thee, and resist not now, in order that, being found faithful in that which is small, you may be enabled to have entrusted to you also that which is great." 

And in Chapter 30 (of the same reference linked above) he indicates that this is not fully realized until we receive immortality (with a resurrected body):

"And thou shalt possess an immortal body, even one placed beyond the possibility of corruption, just like the soul. And thou shalt receive the kingdom of heaven, thou who, whilst thou didst sojourn in this life, didst know the Celestial King. And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God: for whatever sufferings thou didst undergo while being a man, these He gave to thee, because thou wast of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon thee, because thou hast been deified, and begotten unto immortality."

Edited August 2 by InCognitus

[telnetd]

21 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Depends on your point of view.  Jesus called men gods in John 10:34-35, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken."

But many of the early Christians considered it a process of "becoming", like what St. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD) taught in is work Refutation Book 10 Ch. 29:

The introduction notes to Doctrine and Covenants 132 says "Celestial marriage and a 
continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods".

[teddyaware]

20 minutes ago, telnetd said:

The introduction notes to Doctrine and Covenants 132 says "Celestial marriage and a 
continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods".

Do you believe in the resurrection that men and women’s resurrected bodies are going to be anatomically correct, with their internal and external male and female reproductive organs fully intact, or do you believe our resurrected bodies are going to be like genderless Barbie and Ken dolls, with no way beyond mere outward appearance to be able to differentiate between those who were once men and once women on earth? 

43 The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form; both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame, even as we now are at this time; and we shall be brought to stand before God, knowing even as we know now, and have a bright recollection of all our guilt.

44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is oneGod, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil. (Alma 11)

[telnetd]

On 8/3/2026 at 1:29 PM, teddyaware said:

Do you believe in the resurrection that men and women’s resurrected bodies are going to be anatomically correct, with their internal and external male and female reproductive organs fully intact, or do you believe our resurrected bodies are going to be like genderless Barbie and Ken dolls, with no way beyond mere outward appearance to be able to differentiate between those who were once men and once women on earth? 

Yes.

Whether the newly formed Gods will use their reproductive organs to produce spirit
children is questionable. I haven't see any teachings of your church which say how
Mother and Father interacted in their marriage to perform this. But if they did, one
shouldn't be offended by the thought.

[BlipBlap]

On 7/7/2026 at 11:23 AM, telnetd said:

Worshipping an exalted man is a Great Apostasy.

Considering that the Nicaean conception of the Trinity essentially agrees that God is an exalted man and that nothing in the Bible precludes that idea...

[BlipBlap]

On 7/8/2026 at 11:48 AM, 3DOP said:

When LDS apologists accuse the early Church of "hellenizing", it makes me wonder if you have been taught that every school of Greek thought is wrong about everything.

Is non-LDS Christianity apostate because non-LDS agree with some  Greek schools of thought, or all of them in some pernicious fashion?

Do LDS disagree with only some Greek thinkers, or all of them? 

It seems to me that it is possible that Greek philosophy covered so much subject matter that whether we know it or not, all of us are touched by, or agree with, one or another school of thought. It seems possible to me that LDS are no less "hellenized" than a Catholic like me.

I would just ask my LDS friends to consider how this charge of being hellenized seems so vague. I wouldn't even know why I should be concerned about it if I hadn't seen that it proves to LDS that everybody else is apostate.

 

 

 

The argument isn't that "Greek thought is wrong", but the Nicaean conception of God requires one to go to schools of thought that are (more or less) outside the source material.  Neither the Old or New Testament explicitly describe God in the manner in which he is described in the Nicene Creed, with many verses being valid arguments against this conception.  Combine this with the notion that "the church" (i.e. Christendom) requires a monotheistic theology, and you end up with a problem.  How do we maintain monotheism while also dealing with three distinctions, The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit?

The Hebrews certainly didn't conceive God in the same way, there is very little Jesus himself said (based on the Gospels) that supports the idea, and the idea conflicts with other points of theology found in those churches as well as points presented within the Nicene Creed itself.

 

[BlipBlap]

On 8/3/2026 at 11:33 AM, telnetd said:

The introduction notes to Doctrine and Covenants 132 says "Celestial marriage and a 
continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods".

There's also Romans 8:16-17.

16The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together

[3DOP]

7 hours ago, BlipBlap said:

The argument isn't that "Greek thought is wrong", but the Nicaean conception of God requires one to go to schools of thought that are (more or less) outside the source material.  Neither the Old or New Testament explicitly describe God in the manner in which he is described in the Nicene Creed, with many verses being valid arguments against this conception.  Combine this with the notion that "the church" (i.e. Christendom) requires a monotheistic theology, and you end up with a problem.  How do we maintain monotheism while also dealing with three distinctions, The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit?

The Hebrews certainly didn't conceive God in the same way, there is very little Jesus himself said (based on the Gospels) that supports the idea, and the idea conflicts with other points of theology found in those churches as well as points presented within the Nicene Creed itself.

 

Hello Blip Blap, and welcome. 

I am glad you have respect for the Hebrews. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Old Testament Hebrews should have known about the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.  God reveals Himself little by little over the centuries. Two truths that were revealed to the Hebrews by the time of Christ are first, that God created the world out of nothing. The other essential truth that was revealed to the Hebrews is that whatever God is, He is not a man. Of course, we see in Christian times the glorious truth that for our sakes, God the Son became a man. And THAT was a big problem for the Jews.

I am not going to argue about Bible verses. But rather I will point out that Catholics are within the Hebrew tradition regarding both of these teachings, which along with the New Testament informed the Fathers of the Council of Nicea. Nicea is a mere development. The root of our inability to agree with the Latter-day Saints is not from Nicea, it is from orthodox Judaism, both ancient and modern. Why did they crucify our Lord? Did it not have something to do with Him being clearly a man, He claimed to be God?

"We are not stoning you for any good work...but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."   

Edited Tuesday at 12:11 PM by 3DOP

[BlipBlap]

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hello Blip Blap, and welcome. 

I am glad you have respect for the Hebrews. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Old Testament Hebrews should have known about the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.  God reveals Himself little by little over the centuries. Two truths that were revealed to the Hebrews by the time of Christ are first, that God created the world out of nothing. The other essential truth that was revealed to the Hebrews is that whatever God is, He is not a man. Of course, we see in Christian times the glorious truth that for our sakes, God the Son became a man. And THAT was a big problem for the Jews.

I am not going to argue about Bible verses. But rather I will point out that Catholics are within the Hebrew tradition regarding both of these teachings, which along with the New Testament informed the Fathers of the Council of Nicea. Nicea is a mere development. The root of our inability to agree with the Latter-day Saints is not from Nicea, it is from orthodox Judaism, both ancient and modern. Why did they crucify our Lord? Did it not have something to do with Him being clearly a man, He claimed to be God?

"We are not stoning you for any good work...but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."   

Except the Hebrews didn't believe that God created the world out of nothing.  The best example you have of that supposedly being mainstream Hebrew thought is a single verse in 2 Maccabees (7:28), which is believed to have been written around 150-100 BC. That is hardly "ancient and modern orthodox Judaism" as the book is not part of Jewish canon.  You can look at the Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:1 that is translated as "created" in English is "bara", which is not contextually used to mean "creation from nothing".  You can also look at the Greek of 2 Peter 3:5 and see direct support for "creatio ex materia".  Some might interpret the English "earth" as only meaning "dry land", but that wouldn't work given the context of the preceding verses.

We could potentially take it even further and explore the idea that "creatio ex nihilo" implies that God himself is nothing.  God creating all things would mean that all things are the product of the mind of God.  If God (and therefore his mind) is eternal and he created all things, that would mean that his mind would be the pre-existing material by which all things were given form.

As for "God not being a man", that is also difficult to substantiate given that God created man in his image.  "God the Son" becoming a man likewise contradicts the notion that God is unchanging (in the terms of how Nicaeans present the term "unchanging"), uncreated, etc., as God upon becoming incarnate in flesh would be undergoing an objective change. This would directly mean that "God the Son" is created, as God the Son's existence is predicated upon incarnation in flesh and since you deny that God the Father has a physical body, that means that the body was created at a later time.

It then runs into LDS theology of God the Father having a physical body.  Your theology denies this, yet contradicts itself in the very idea of "God the Son" being "God incarnated in flesh".  Either you acknowledge that God the Father always had a physical body, or that the idea of consubstantiality doesn't work due to attributing different natures to one aspect of the Nicene God and not the other.

There are other issues as well.  If "God the Son" is "God becoming man", you would at minimum be agreeing to the idea of God being an "exalted man" upon Jesus' Transfiguration.  The hypostatic union suggests this too.

[telnetd]

11 hours ago, BlipBlap said:

Considering that the Nicaean conception of the Trinity essentially agrees that God is an exalted man and that nothing in the Bible precludes that idea...

Where does it teach Father, Son, and Holy Ghost became God?

[telnetd]

11 hours ago, BlipBlap said:

There's also Romans 8:16-17.

16The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together

Only children become Gods.  Not a God, then not a child.

[InCognitus]

21 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Only children become Gods.  Not a God, then not a child.

But all are the offspring of God.  All humans.  The Bible says so, you know the verses.  And we must “love our enemies” and “do good” to them that hate us, so "that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven", as Jesus said.  We're all children of God, but we must become his children by entering a covenant with him and follow him.

[BlipBlap]

36 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Where does it teach Father, Son, and Holy Ghost became God?

I never said that it did, but considering that the LDS church doesn't believe in a closed canon, that question doesn't really work against us.

[BlipBlap]

36 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Only children become Gods.  Not a God, then not a child.

wat

[3DOP]

22 hours ago, BlipBlap said:

Except the Hebrews didn't believe that God created the world out of nothing.  The best example you have of that supposedly being mainstream Hebrew thought is a single verse in 2 Maccabees (7:28), which is believed to have been written around 150-100 BC. That is hardly "ancient and modern orthodox Judaism" as the book is not part of Jewish canon.  You can look at the Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:1 that is translated as "created" in English is "bara", which is not contextually used to mean "creation from nothing".  You can also look at the Greek of 2 Peter 3:5 and see direct support for "creatio ex materia".  Some might interpret the English "earth" as only meaning "dry land", but that wouldn't work given the context of the preceding verses.

Hi again BlipBlap,

Thank you for your prompt and concise reply.

For the record, if you can convince me that the Catholic Church is apostate, I would consider the CoJCoLDS as one of the few contenders for the one true church with valid priestly orders. That is why I have been here for almost 22 years on the internet and at ZLMB (a prior LDS site that many of your fellow LDS came from) for another five. Alas, I seem a hopeless case. I was 43 when I started. So far, I must have seen most of the arguments against the positive LDS teaching. My thoughts always lead me back to the Apostasy. I know that the NIcene Creed and Catholic doctrine is compatible with Scripture and the history of revelation. However, I grant that I have always found myself sympathetic to the LDS apologist when the "anti-Mormon" was attacking. Thankfully, as I see it, my Catholic faith is not dependent on a negative evaluation of LDS claims. With the exception of when it may have touched upon Catholic beliefs, I learned to take for granted that the Latter-day-Saint answers his critics well. 

I haven't paid much attention to that anti-LDS stuff though for at least a decade. As I said, I pretty much assume that the LDS are continuing to answer their critics. Besides, until last year, I was always working 50 to 60 hours driving truck, and then as a factory hand. Now I am finally 70 and happily retired. I wanted to introduce myself and let you know that I have great respect for you and your fellow LDS here, who I am pleased to designate as my internet friends. As friendly as one can be in the virtual world. 

--------

My plan is to try to reply as time allows to try to make a brief reply to each of your critiques in defense of the Catholic faith, and to show why I am unconvinced by your argument. Here we go.

I never intended to suggested that all the Hebrews held to creatio ex nihilo at the beginning of revelation history. What I said was the following:

"God reveals Himself little by little over the centuries."

The resurrection of the body among many other revelations that came later, did not appear at once as mainstream Jewish thought. Even by the times of Christ, the Sadducees doubted the teaching, who undoubtedly cited many of the older Scriptures, which pointed to Sheol as a place for all the dead, probably worse for some than others, but nevertheless, always inferior to this life. The Sadducees had older Scriptures to back them up. But there were other writings that seemed authentic to the more progressive among the Jews, and if they were uncanonized before Christ, they left their influence. The deutero-canonical books are without doubt of Hebrew origin, and began to influence Hebrew thought. The Book of Daniel, which is usually dated from the 2nd Century B.C, in 12:2, also gives an later clear revelation of the resurrection of the body. Whenever it made it into the Hebrew canon, the Sadducees were unconvinced. But the doctrine would little by little become more and more acceptable to Orthodox Jews. 

As you say, the best example I have for ex nihilo is in 2 Maccabees 7. You make the perhaps valid complaint that the authorship of this book is "hardly ancient and modern Judaism", because of its later authorship and its non-canonical status? I would not argue that creatio ex nihilo is as early as the teaching that God is not a human being which appears earlier. I apologize for any confusion. By ancient, I meant pre-Christian. I should have been clearer. What I wished to emphasize is the following, where I wrote:

"Two truths that were revealed to the Hebrews by the time of Christ..."

I then cite the two root doctrines which will always cause an impasse if trying to reconcile mainstream Christian and LDS doctrine. I hope we both agree that later revelations clarify past revelations. It would appear from the development of Jewish theology in the Christian era that many Jews accepted both of these beliefs that are contested by Latter-day Saints. I would suppose that you should find this even more puzzling. Most Orthodox Jewish theology retains creatio ex nihilo WITHOUT canonizing 2 Maccabees. 2 Maccabees gives us the clearest idea of God creating out of nothing, and for Catholic and Orthodox theology, it is canonical. 

I have never studied Hebrew and have always accepted the uncontested view that Genesis 1, speaks of pre-existent matter in chaos. I am not convinced that this disproves the tradition of my Church, which agrees with most Christians and Jews who have come to believe nothing exists before God. He could have created matter and then formed it. But I agree that Genesis only talks about the formation.

The Greek Septuagint began to have a lively influence on Jewish thinking a hundred years before Maccabees. For Christians, the later belief in God as creator of matter, might also be argued from the fact that the authors of the New Testament so frequently cite the Old Testament Septuagint. I understand that Jewish scholars in Alexandria translated the passage where God gives his name to Moses at the burning bush. The Hebrew is said to be translated into Greek, rendered in our language, as "I Am". A peculiar name. pointing perhaps to the idea of God as "pure existence"? Interestingly enough, you surely have seen where in the Gospel of John, Jesus Himself says, Before Abraham was I...Was? No. Before Abraham was, "I am". That same odd usage. As in Exodus, maybe Jesus was making a deeper, ontological point about His existence, along with His being older than Abraham. 

Sorry about the mixup on ancient and modern. Ancient Judaism seems closer to LDS thinking on both God as a human and creation out of matter not of God's making. I don't have a problem admitting that. Maybe you can see why I am nevertheless believing that a more perfect revelation followed. In those times they seemed to also believe that the world was sitting on a number of big pillars that was sitting on top of who knows what? I think we have reason to question if the most ancient teachings are necessarily the most accurate.

Wow, that took a long time. It is time for a cup of that black juice that our Church permits. Don't worry. I can give up coffee is there was an apostasy! Heh.

Regards,

3DOP      

 

        

Edited Wednesday at 02:50 PM by 3DOP

[BlipBlap]

10 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hi again BlipBlap,

Thank you for your prompt and concise reply.

For the record, if you can convince me that the Catholic Church is apostate, I would consider the CoJCoLDS as one of the few contenders for the one true church with valid priestly orders. That is why I have been here for almost 22 years on the internet and at ZLMB (a prior LDS site that many of your fellow LDS came from) for another five. Alas, I seem a hopeless case. I was 43 when I started. So far, I must have seen most of the arguments against the positive LDS teaching. My thoughts always lead me back to the Apostasy. I know that the NIcene Creed and Catholic doctrine is compatible with Scripture and the history of revelation. However, I grant that I have always found myself sympathetic to the LDS apologist when the "anti-Mormon" was attacking. Thankfully, as I see it, my Catholic faith is not dependent on a negative evaluation of LDS claims. With the exception of when it may have touched upon Catholic beliefs, I learned to take for granted that the Latter-day-Saint answers his critics well. 

I haven't paid much attention to that anti-LDS stuff though for at least a decade. As I said, I pretty much assume that the LDS are continuing to answer their critics. Besides, until last year, I was always working 50 to 60 hours driving truck, and then as a factory hand. Now I am finally 70 and happily retired. I wanted to introduce myself and let you know that I have great respect for you and your fellow LDS here, who I am pleased to designate as my internet friends. As friendly as one can be in the virtual world. 

--------

My plan is to try to reply as time allows to try to make a brief reply to each of your critiques in defense of the Catholic faith, and to show why I am unconvinced by your argument. Here we go.

I never intended to suggested that all the Hebrews held to creatio ex nihilo at the beginning of revelation history. What I said was the following:

"God reveals Himself little by little over the centuries."

The resurrection of the body among many other revelations that came later, did not appear at once as mainstream Jewish thought. Even by the times of Christ, the Sadducees doubted the teaching, who undoubtedly cited many of the older Scriptures, which pointed to Sheol as a place for all the dead, probably worse for some than others, but nevertheless, always inferior to this life. The Sadducees had older Scriptures to back them up. But there were other writings that seemed authentic to the more progressive among the Jews, and if they were uncanonized before Christ, they left their influence. The deutero-canonical books are without doubt of Hebrew origin, and began to influence Hebrew thought. The Book of Daniel, which is usually dated from the 2nd Century B.C, in 12:2, also gives an later clear revelation of the resurrection of the body. Whenever it made it into the Hebrew canon, the Sadducees were unconvinced. But the doctrine would little by little become more and more acceptable to Orthodox Jews. 

As you say, the best example I have for ex nihilo is in 2 Maccabees 7. You make the perhaps valid complaint that the authorship of this book is "hardly ancient and modern Judaism", because of its later authorship and its non-canonical status? I would not argue that creatio ex nihilo is as early as the teaching that God is not a human being which appears earlier. I apologize for any confusion. By ancient, I meant pre-Christian. I should have been clearer. What I wished to emphasize is the following, where I wrote:

"Two truths that were revealed to the Hebrews by the time of Christ..."

I then cite the two root doctrines which will always cause an impasse if trying to reconcile mainstream Christian and LDS doctrine. I hope we both agree that later revelations clarify past revelations. It would appear from the development of Jewish theology in the Christian era that many Jews accepted both of these beliefs that are contested by Latter-day Saints. I would suppose that you should find this even more puzzling. Most Orthodox Jewish theology retains creatio ex nihilo WITHOUT canonizing 2 Maccabees. 2 Maccabees gives us the clearest idea of God creating out of nothing, and for Catholic and Orthodox theology, it is canonical. 

I have never studied Hebrew and have always accepted the uncontested view that Genesis 1, speaks of pre-existent matter in chaos. I am not convinced that this disproves the tradition of my Church, which agrees with most Christians and Jews who have come to believe nothing exists before God. He could have created matter and then formed it. But I agree that Genesis only talks about the formation.

The Greek Septuagint began to have a lively influence on Jewish thinking a hundred years before Maccabees. For Christians, the later belief in God as creator of matter, might also be argued from the fact that the authors of the New Testament so frequently cite the Old Testament Septuagint. I understand that Jewish scholars in Alexandria translated the passage where God gives his name to Moses at the burning bush. The Hebrew is said to be translated into Greek, rendered in our language, as "I Am". A peculiar name. pointing perhaps to the idea of God as "pure existence"? Interestingly enough, you surely have seen where in the Gospel of John, Jesus Himself says, Before Abraham was I...Was? No. Before Abraham was, "I am". That same odd usage. As in Exodus, maybe Jesus was making a deeper, ontological point about His existence, along with His being older than Abraham. 

Sorry about the mixup on ancient and modern. Ancient Judaism seems closer to LDS thinking on both God as a human and creation out of matter not of God's making. I don't have a problem admitting that. Maybe you can see why I am nevertheless believing that a more perfect revelation followed. In those times they seemed to also believe that the world was sitting on a number of big pillars that was sitting on top of who knows what? I think we have reason to question if the most ancient teachings are necessarily the most accurate.

Wow, that took a long time. It is time for a cup of that black juice that our Church permits. Don't worry. I can give up coffee is there was an apostasy! Heh.

Regards,

3DOP      

 

        

"For the record, if you can convince me that the Catholic Church is apostate, I would consider the CoJCoLDS as one of the few contenders for the one true church with valid priestly orders."

Convincing you of the apostasy isn't required as that isn't the topic.  You made the claim that your disagreements were rooted in "orthodox Judaism" and so far failed to produce evidence of such.  In this case, "evidence" would be scripture from the Old Testament/Tanakh.  Merely showing where the thought was being considered among some Jewish people is not equivalent to it being Judaic doctrine.

That would be like me saying that the Catholic church was once pro-abortion as a point of doctrine due to the concept of delayed ensoulment essentially being "It's just a clump of cells" but with fancier words and it being a concept taught by some who are revered in the Catholic church (i.e. Thomas Aquinas).

[telnetd]

On 8/11/2026 at 12:59 PM, BlipBlap said:

wat

A child is an heir.

[BlipBlap]

3 hours ago, telnetd said:

A child is an heir.

"Child" in the sense of being progeny, not age.