Irenaeus Of Lyons

[maklelan]

so im reading leo donald davis' book "the first seven ecumenical councils 325-787; their history and theology," and he quotes irenaeus of loyns, the first theologian who attempted to refute the gnostic christians and their cliams (as made by the like of the valentinuns and marcion) that there were at least 2 gods.

irenaeus says,

"either there must be one god who contains all things and has made every creature according to his will, or there must be many interminate creators or gods... but in this case we shall have to aknowledge that none of them is god. for each of them... will be defective in comparison ith the rest, and the title 'almighty' will not be reduced to naught." pg. 39

he seems to bring up a good point that im sure has already been adressed. what say you?

His argument is based on the description of God made by Xenophanes (the Greek philosopher from several hundred years earlier:

If God is the mightiest, He must be One; for were He two or more, He would not have dominion over the others, but, not having dominion over the others, He could not be God. Thus were there several, they would be relatively more powerful or weaker, and thus they would not be gods, for Godâ??s nature is to have nothing mightier than He.

Most of the fathers took other quotes verbatim from Xenophanes, like "without parts," "incorporeal," etc.. The problem I see with the argument is that it creates an artificial restriction based entirely on how we decide to define terms. The above argument, for example, works only if we all agree that every being holding the title "god" is also defined as "almighty," but then you have issues with how to define almighty. Irenaeus defines the terms so that the conclusion is foregone.

[e=mc2]

BCSpace:

They are useful to show that the further back one goes, the more LDS doctrine one finds amidst the Church until you reach Bible times when it is all LDS and none other. Irenaeus is a prime example of this.

Ayiyi......me thinks you are pushin the envelope on this assertion bub........

[cksalmon]

Did you conjure this? Because it is genius.

CK, while you and many misguided critics of the church insist upon these billions and billions of Gods and all of the staggering potential (while believing in some mysterious essence-god) you overlook the true LDS doctrine. We will only ever, in all of eternity, have one Father of our spirits, one Savior and one Holy Ghost. That's pretty much it. Don't overcomplicate it.

Well, I'd be glad to learn the true LDS doctrine on this matter. While you present yourself as a traditional henotheist, do you not affirm the existence of billions of gods? I'm not overcomplicating it, I don't think. I'm just wondering about your personal, unfiltered perspective. I have no inherent desire to insist upon billions and billions of gods. My question is quite simple: Is there One God? Or are there three? Or are there billions? Or millions? Or thousands? Or whatever? I understand henotheism. I'm asking you, objectively, first, are there three Gods for us? And, secondarily, are there, what? Thousands? Millions? Billions of other gods? Who knows? Just curious about your opinion.

Best.

CKS

PS. I guess, I'm fundamentally asking, "Do you believe in three Gods or an unspecified multitude of gods?" I'm asking without regard to a henotheistically-delimited set. I'm asking about your personal belief about the number of gods in the universe. One? Three? Many?

Best.

CKS

[BCSpace]

Assuredly not as he himself proclaimed these things expressly in verses such as John 20:17 and the Pslams 82:6/John 10:34-36 set.

Wha?!

It's really quite simple (as the Gospel is wont to be). For example....

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. John 20:17

So here we have Jesus proclaiming that he has a God which opens the door to many Gods as he himself will also say.........

Jesus answered them, 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;

Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? John 10:34-36 See also Ps 82:6

Here we have a Lexiconal conundrum that is solved by the context. gods in the OT case can be either real and divine Gods or human judges. John 10 provides the context. Jesus could not have been considered to blaspheme if by 'ye are gods' he was referring to human judges. The only possible interpretation is real and divine Gods.

So there you have it. 'Billions' of Gods.

The others have quite plausible alternative interpretations that do not involve billions of gods.

There are none such.

Is this it, biblically?

Not at all. But I shall wait for you to catch up with a plausible explaination. I think I shall be waiting a long time......

Do you think these passages demonstrate beyond doubt that there exist billions of gods?

Even if they were the only ones, yes. I also think you'll be suprised at how many of the ECF believe the same thing.

We reject the god of the philosophers....

Monotheist is the only accurate term I can think of. I'm quite sure I've been much plainer than Ostler. Btw, does Ostler speak for the Church?

Jesus said, Whom do men say that I am?

And his disciples answered and said, Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elias, or other of the old prophets.

And Jesus answered and said, But whom do you say that I am?

Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as His rationality and then, by an act of His will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only on the fact that Scripture speaks of a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member, and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple."

And Jesus answering, said, "What?"

Did you conjure this? Because it is genius.

The bit about the philosophers and monotheism is mine (though others have come up with similar). The "Whom do you say that I am" bit is not mine, it belongs to Barry Bickmore as far as I can tell.

[LifeOnaPlate]

No, Ostler definitely does not speak for the Church. Don't let his PhD fool ya. He speaks for himself as a faithful, practicing LDS. (If he spoke for the Church, I'm sure he would be more circumspect in his assessment and articulation of LDS theological claims.) It just so happens that he is doing the most interesting writing about LDS theology as of today. Sorry about that. I'll try to get him an official calling. Don't hold your breath, though.

I'm sure Jesus would have said "What?" to this mess. He would, assuredly, have said "What?" to the LDS claim that "The Lord Our God is Three Among Billions. Three, I tell ya! Not One, So Much. No. Three. Among Billions. Pretty Cool, Eh?! Seriously, Man. There're Three Gods. For You. But Billions Other, Besides. Oh, Man, Ι forgot to Tell You About That? Yeah, Man. Seriously, Itâ??s True. The Lord Our God is Not One; Heâ??s Just the Latest Divine Upstart. We Got Three On a Whim.â?

Best.

CKS

You constantly cite this "billions" of Gods business, but I've yet to see an LDS source saying "there are billions of gods." If by "gods" you include even "sons of God" as John does, there could be that many, but not that I know of. Can you cite a reference from an LDS official claiming "billions" of Gods? If not, you'll have to drop the light way you approach the doctrine, imo.

[e=mc2]

Ah good ole Bar Bickmore...... I'm even using his materials in one of my new podcasts coming out this weekend. That kid is good!

[BCSpace]

You constantly cite this "billions" of Gods business, but I've yet to see an LDS source saying "there are billions of gods." If by "gods" you include even "sons of God" as John does, there could be that many, but not that I know of. Can you cite a reference from an LDS official claiming "billions" of Gods? If not, you'll have to drop the light way you approach the doctrine, imo.

'Billions' is very possible in LDS theology but not mandatory. After all, there are other worlds than this one.....

That there will be (and are) many real and divine Gods other than the F, S, and HG is expressly stated in D&C 132:20 and (I daresay) in Gospel Principles chapter 47 on Exaltation.

Ah good ole Bar Bickmore...... I'm even using his materials in one of my new podcasts coming out this weekend. That kid is good!

Excellent primer on the ECF that was. His old site is still up.

[LifeOnaPlate]

'Billions' is very possible in LDS theology but not mandatory. After all, there are other worlds than this one.....

That there will be (and are) many real and divine Gods other than the F, S, and HG is expressly stated in D&C 132:20 and (I daresay) in Gospel Principles chapter 47 on Exaltation.

Excellent primer on the ECF that was. His old site is still up.

Where is the source on these "billions" of Gods assured by CK?

[e=mc2]

OHMIGOSH! I didn't realize his old site was still kickin around........ he ought to be steadily adding to it here and there.

[3DOP]

As a non-Catholic who espouses belief in the creedal, catholic Trinity, I would ask, "Do you believe in three separate, individually-existing Gods?" Or, is there one God?

Best.

CKS

3DOP

I wouldn't be comfortable saying that "I believe in three separate, individually-existing Gods," if to do so implies a denial that there is one God. As I tried to say above, I believe the Traditions of the Catholic Church. I think that what I said above about the Threeness of God with the help of Cardinal Newman is compatible with belief in one God. I think there is a reason why Muslims and Jews accuse Trinitarians of polytheism. I think it is because there is a sense in which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to use your words "separate" and "individually-existing". In my opinion, they (Muslims and Jews) can be more rigorous about their monotheism than I can be.

The Old Testament certainly reveals God as One with only hints of Threeness. But the New Testament tells us that the One God is Three Persons. Are they separate and individually existing? If I understand correctly, not as to substance. But as distinct Persons it would seem they are. Therefore, I would tend to respond in the affirmative to both of your questions. Have I misunderstood something? I am very open to correction on this subject from one who contends for "the creedal, catholic Trinity". Thanks for any help you might want to offer.

Regards,

3DOP

[e=mc2]

Three persons in the Godhead equal 3 Gods. Now the unity of the Godhead can be thought of as ONE God, since they all work in unification of goals purposes etc. BUT Everyone who is adopted as Divine Sons of God, and receives of the Father's FULLNESS become what? What does the Father - God Almighty - possess? Are there any limitations proposed to be joint heirs with Christ in all the the Father has?

[BCSpace]

'Billions' is very possible in LDS theology but not mandatory. After all, there are other worlds than this one.....

That there will be (and are) many real and divine Gods other than the F, S, and HG is expressly stated in D&C 132:20 and (I daresay) in Gospel Principles chapter 47 on Exaltation.

Excellent primer on the ECF that was. His old site is still up.

Where is the source on these "billions" of Gods assured by CK?

I don't think it's unreasonable to postulate such numbers (given infinite worlds), but here CK is using sensationalism instead of logic or facts.

BUT Everyone who is adopted as Divine Sons of God, and receives of the Father's FULLNESS become what? What does the Father - God Almighty - possess? Are there any limitations proposed to be joint heirs with Christ in all the the Father has?

None whatsoever except the concept of subordinationism.

[jason e.]

"Yeah, Man. Seriously, Itâ??s True. The Lord Our God is Not One; Heâ??s Just the Latest Divine Upstart. We Got Three On a Whim"

-brilliant.

lifeonaplate; orson pratt said the following;

"Each God, through his wife or wives, raises up a numerous family of sons and daughters... each father and mother will be in a condition to multiply forever. As soon as each God has begotten many millions of male and female spirits... he, in connection with his sons, organizes a new world... where he sends both the male and female spirits to inhabit tabernacles of flesh and bones.... The inhabitants of each world are required to reverence, adore, and worship their own personal father who dwells in the Heaven which they formerly inhabited." (Orson Pratt. The Seer, March 1853, p. 37)

follow this logic and arrive at billions

[jason e.]

bcspace;

you speak like the bible cleary teaches there are many gods (and not the lords sense but actual gods who are getting prayed to and the like). there is a huge burden of proof resting on you as the new (you) answers to the old, so please present your verses and context that supposedly prove the fact there are many gods. thanks.

[Maidservant]

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all they might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart; . . . Know therefore that the LORD they God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;"

Deuteronomy 6:4-6 and 7:9

My personal perception of "One God" -- what I think I am hearing as I read the scriptures -- is not really a body count one way or the other. Rather, as Jehovah/ Jesus Christ (under the direction of his and our Father) is observing and leading (or attempting to lead) the children of God on this earth, He sees how easy it is for the children of God to become lost and entangled and to allow themselves to be blinded -- in a nutshell, to choose anything else but what is right, what is the plan of salvation, to choose anything other than their Father and to follow in His way (Moses 7:32-33 and 35; also earlier -- 30-31; and earlier 23-24 "all the nations of the earth were before him; . . . the power of Satan was upon all the face of the earth).

So in this constant struggle, there is a constant need of reminder and remembrance -- and this declaration Jehovah makes throughout the Old Testament (and not as much in the New?) functions as the great remembrance -- again, not as a body count. He is stating that all of the pathways that a person could go down, all of the idols that one could embrace and waste time with (not to mention more depraved practices) -- Jehovah is stating -- DON'T GO IN ANY OF THOSE DIRECTIONS! There is only one God. It invites a choice, a use of agency, a commitment -- it is not a body count of personages here, there, near, far, past, present who possess a glorified nature. "Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the Lord. And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served . . . but as for me and and my house, we will serve the Lord". Joshua 24:14-15 Inseparably linked to this declaration of the One God is His Promise (s) that He will not forsake us, He will not leave us, and He is the only One who can Deliver us -- can the idols deliver? No they can't; that is why He is the One God and they (idols and etc) are not -- not a reference to a numerical valued or personages; simply the affirmation of one path, truth, gospel, plan of the Father. The people's response to Joshua's Reminder -- Joshua 24:16-21 which very clearly presents the idea of the One and jealous God as a CHOICE. Other good spots: Joshua 1:9 and pretty much all of Joshua.

And as Ephesians says (4:5-6): "One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all". This chapter as well, presents the grand decision we each must make; v18 "Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart" and v23-24 "And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness."

I also point out, as a matter of interest, the scene/ passage in John Chapter 10, specifically versus 22 thru 38, and I find it telling that it is the SAME subject/ sermon to Jesus -- he says it all in the same breath and it provides no contradiction to Him: He can say: v 30 "I and my Father are one" and then also mentions the concept found in Psalms (v34). (Also other great scriptures: John 17:11 and21)

I end with a little more Deuteronomy ch 32 beginning v 1 "Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth . . . (v4) He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he . . . . (v6) is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee? . . . (v15) then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation. They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods . . . they sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not . . . Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee. And when the Lord saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters . . . they have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God . . . . . (ch33 v26-27) there is none like unto the God Jeshurun who rideth upon the heaven in thy help, and in his excellency on the sky. The eternal God is thy refuge . . ."

Briefly then, again, Jehovah and Who and What He represents are the one God only in foil to the strange gods -- addictions, idols, depravities, cold hearts, etc -- that His (the Father's) children must be redeemed and delivered in any and every way through what He offers (His atonement and His might) and no other way.

[Calm]

bcspace;

you speak like the bible cleary teaches there are many gods (and not the lords sense but actual gods who are getting prayed to and the like). there is a huge burden of proof resting on you as the new (you) answers to the old, so please present your verses and context that supposedly prove the fact there are many gods. thanks.

Perhaps you should address the proofs you've been requested to provide first.

[bjw]

On Irenaeus: he knew of Polycarp in his youth. Basically, he has as much credibility as a doctrinal authority of the primitive church as I do to the modern day church considering I "knew of" multiple prophets in my youth.

There's no reason to believe that Polycarp knew Irenaeus from Adam...from what I've read.

PacMan

PacMan, thanks for clearing that up. I had a Bible prof in Bible college that used to pride himself on quoting Iranaeus and he claimed that Iranaeus had a direct link to John the Apostle through Polycarp. From this thread it seems that he (and the college) were actually fairly ignorant as to his teachings.

[LifeOnaPlate]

lifeonaplate; orson pratt said the following;

"Each God, through his wife or wives, raises up a numerous family of sons and daughters... each father and mother will be in a condition to multiply forever. As soon as each God has begotten many millions of male and female spirits... he, in connection with his sons, organizes a new world... where he sends both the male and female spirits to inhabit tabernacles of flesh and bones.... The inhabitants of each world are required to reverence, adore, and worship their own personal father who dwells in the Heaven which they formerly inhabited." (Orson Pratt. The Seer, March 1853, p. 37)

follow this logic and arrive at billions

First of all, The Seer was denounced by the First Presidency as containing some heretical speculations. The quote you cited, however, seems to be in line with Ireaneus, as well as the concept of men becoming even joint-heirs with Jesus Christ, gods, even the sons of god.

But back to your source, The Seer:

B.H. Roberts, outstanding Defender of the Faith had this to say:

The Seer, by formal action of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles of the Church was repudiated, and Elder Orson Pratt himself sanctioned the repudiation. There was a long article published in the Deseret News on the 23rd of August, 1865, over the signatures of the First Presidency and Twelve setting forth that this work--the Seer--together with some other writings of Elder Pratt, were inaccurate. In the course of that document, after praising, as well they might, the great bulk of the work of this noted apostle, they say: "But the Seer, the Great First Cause, the article in the Millennial Star, of Oct. 15, and Nov. 1, 1850 contains doctrine which we cannot sanction and which we have felt to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works or harts of works are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed."

It's interesting that jason e. would want to use this speculative work as something that represents in all respects what the LDS Church believes. Here's what our own FAIR site had to say about this tactic, with which I agree:

Anti-Mormons are not interested, for the most part, in addressing the real beliefs held by Mormons or the real doctrines embraced by the Church as contained in our official sources of doctrine. They choose instead to focus on carefully selected excerpts from obscure writings to provide the sole foundation for their accusations. Not only is this approach dishonest, it is outright deceitful. But such is their methodology and modus operandi. Obscure, repudiated writings from the fringe of an individual's personal speculations simply sound more damning. The fact that the Church publicly denounced them is simply a bothersome detail they correctly assume most people won't take the time to find out.

Second, I already mentioned the fact that if joint-heirs with Jesus Christ, those who inherit all that the Father has, then could be considered gods, then there are many gods. However, where is an OFFICIAL SOURCE from the Church, not a speculative work, that claims there are billions [not millions] of Gods? Please don't use repudiated sources, which even in themselves, do not make the claim I am addressing.

Lastly, you brought up Ireaneus and then promptly dropped him after I quoted him as saying there will be many gods, in a similar way to Elder Pratt.

Thanks!

[livy111us]

The scriptures refer to each of them as God (1 Tim. 2:3, Acts 5:3-4). So to me, if you add one plus one plus one, you get three, not one. But I think that this can cause some confusion. Origin clears it up.

Robert M. Grant, professor of New Testament and early Christianity in the Divinity School

of the University of Chicago, did a study on the doctrine of God held by the early Church, he writes

â??In a papyrus published in 1949 we possess a fascinating account of a â??discussion of Origen with

Heraclides and the bishops with him, concerning the Father, the Son, and the soul.â? A translation of

the opening pages of this discussion is given here because it carries us into the kind of arena in

which the early patristic theological questions were often fought out.â?

The papyrus reads: â??Since the bishops present had raised questions about the faith of the

bishop Heraclides, so that in the presence of all he might acknowledge his faith, and each of them

had made remarks and had raised the question, the bishop Heraclides said: â??And I too believe

exactly what the divine scriptures say: â??In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,

and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into existence through

him, and nothing came into existence apart from him.â?? So we agree in the faith and, furthermore, we

believe that the Christ assumed flesh, that he was born, that he ascended into the heavens with the

flesh in which he arose, and that he is seated at the right hand of the Father, whence he is going to

come and judge the living and the dead, being God and man.â?

Origen said: â??Since a debate is now beginning and one may speak on the subject of the debate, I will

speak. The whole church is here to listen. One church should not differ from another in knowledge,

since you are not the false community. I ask you, Father Heraclides. God is the almighty, the

uncreated, the supreme

one who made all things. Do you agree?â?

Heraclides said: â??I agree; for thus I too believe.â?

Origen said: â??Christ Jesus, who exists in the form of God, though he is distinct from God in the form

in which he existed, was he God before he entered a body or not?â?

Heraclides said: â??He was God before.â?

Origen said: â??He was God before he entered a body, or not?â?

Heraclides said: â??Yes.â?

Origen said: â??God distinct from this God in whose form he existed?â?

Heraclides said: â??Obviously distinct from any other, since he is in the form of that one who created

everything.â?

Origen said: â??Was there not a God, Son of God, the only begotten of God, the first-born of all

creation, and do we not devoutly say that in one sense there are two Gods and, in another, one God?â?

Heraclides said: â??What you say is clear; but we say that there is God, the almighty, without

beginning and without end, containing all things but not contained, and there is his Word, Son of the

living God, God and man, through whom all things came into existence, God in relation to the Spirit

and man in that he was born of Mary.â?

Origen said: â??You do not seem to have answered my question. Make it clear; perhaps I did not follow

you. Is the Father God?â?

Heraclides said: â??Certainly.â?

Origen said: â??Is the Son distinct from the Father?â?

Heraclides said: â??How can he be Son if he is also Father?â?

Origen said: â??While distinct from the Father, is the Son himself also God?â?

Heraclides said: â??He himself is also God.â?

Origen said: â??And the two Gods become one?â?

Heraclides said: â??Yes.â?

Origen said: â??Do we acknowledge two Gods?â?

Heraclides said: â??Yes; the power is one.â?

Origen said: â??But since our brethren are shocked by the affirmation that there are two Gods, the

subject must be examined with care in order to show in what respect they are two and in what

respect the two are one God.â?

(The Early Christian Doctrine of God, Dialogue with Heraclides, pg. 68-70)

In one sense there are 3 Gods, but in another sense they are one God.

[urroner]

In one sense there are 3 Gods, but in another sense they are one God.

That sounds very familiar to the concept of a Godhead, but then again, what do I know?

[rhinomelon]

BCSpace:

QUOTE

They are useful to show that the further back one goes, the more LDS doctrine one finds amidst the Church until you reach Bible times when it is all LDS and none other. Irenaeus is a prime example of this.

Ayiyi......me thinks you are pushin the envelope on this assertion bub........

Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought so Oddly enough, the ECF that LDS turn to most often to provide historical backing for their unique doctrines are the later ante-Nicene fathers, most notably Clement of Alexandria and Origen (who has already been quoted on this thread already!). The odd thing is, these church fathers are also among the most Greek-influenced of them all! If the incorporation of Greek metaphysics into Christian theology was a major cause/symptom of the Great Apostasy, then why do LDS turn to the most Greek ECF to bolster their case?

As for Irenaeus, he is explicitly monotheistic, while also leaving room for the deification of man (although not in the sense of men and God being members of the same species).

More later, I'm sure.

Take care, everyone

[LifeOnaPlate]

As for Irenaeus, he is explicitly monotheistic, while also leaving room for the deification of man (although not in the sense of men and God being members of the same species).

CFR thanks!

[BCSpace]

bcspace;

you speak like the bible cleary teaches there are many gods (and not the lords sense but actual gods who are getting prayed to and the like). there is a huge burden of proof resting on you as the new (you) answers to the old, so please present your verses and context that supposedly prove the fact there are many gods. thanks.

I have in this very thread. Feel free to address them. There's much more, but to prevent jumping around, we'll see if you can provide an adequate and non-contradictory counter-explaination.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I have in this very thread. Feel free to address them. There's much more, but to prevent jumping around, we'll see if you can provide an adequate and non-contradictory counter-explaination.

They addressed them by saying they just don't count. As you pointed out, they have yet to offer a better counter-explanation, however.

[maklelan]

Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought so Oddly enough, the ECF that LDS turn to most often to provide historical backing for their unique doctrines are the later ante-Nicene fathers, most notably Clement of Alexandria and Origen (who has already been quoted on this thread already!). The odd thing is, these church fathers are also among the most Greek-influenced of them all! If the incorporation of Greek metaphysics into Christian theology was a major cause/symptom of the Great Apostasy, then why do LDS turn to the most Greek ECF to bolster their case?

Because they don't know what they're talking about. I wrote a paper explaining why Latter-day Saints shouldn't waste their time looking for hidden pockets of LDS doctrine in the early Fathers. A revised form of it will be published in BYU's upcoming Student Symposium publication. If you want to read the paper it can be found here:

http://mormonapologetics.org/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=703