Did Joseph Smith Restore Theosis? Part Five: Early Church Fathers

[Rob Bowman]

I have finally posted Part Five of my series of blog articles on Parchment and Pen responding to Dan Peterson's article on theosis. Part Five deals with the issue of the early church fathers and Joseph Smith's doctrine of exaltation.

[wenglund]

I have finally posted Part Five of my series of blog articles on Parchment and Pen responding to Dan Peterson's article on theosis. Part Five deals with the issue of the early church fathers and Joseph Smith's doctrine of exaltation.

I clicked on the link and couldn't get past the request to join the CredoHouse Newsletter (I don't wish to join), So, I didn't read your fifth in a series of lengthy installments critiquing Dr. Peterson's brief newspaper article. Never has so much been said about so little. I am just pleased to see people hanging on Dr. Peterson's every word.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Anakin7]

I clicked on the link and couldn't get past the request to join the CredoHouse Newsletter (I don't wish to join), So, I didn't read your fifth in a series of lengthy installments critiquing Dr. Peterson's brief newspaper article. Never has so much been said about so little. I am just pleased to see people hanging on Dr. Peterson's every word.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade I clicked the link and went right to the article. If it comes up click the X in upper right corner of newsletter.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[wenglund]

Wade I clicked the link and went right to the article. If it comes up click the X in upper right corner of newsletter.

I tried again and the request popped up as before, but I couldn't see an X in the upper right corner, nor anywhere on the ad. Oh well...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[altersteve]

A few comments...

The very writings in which an explicit Christian doctrine of human deification first appears are the earliest documents from what the LDS Church teaches was a growing apostasy, a spiritual and theological darkness that overcame the Christian movement in the second, third, and fourth centuries.

CFR that the Church teaches that apostasy took place during the second, third, and fourth centuries. The Church doesn't claim to know when the apostasy happened, despite what the "traditional LDS position" is. Furthermore, citing only two sources for what you claim is the "traditional LDS position," only one of which was written by a General Authority, doesn't cut it. You're going to have to provide more sources than that; otherwise, it looks like you simply made an assertion and found two random quotes that back it up.

Of course, it is theoretically possible that the church fathers might have been right about humans becoming gods and wrong about other things. A Mormon could argue that the Great Apostasy led to the loss of divine authority and to the gradual loss of some doctrinal truths but not others, with the doctrine of people becoming gods as one that was not lost right away. This might seem a sufficient explanation for how it was that the church fathers believed in humans becoming deified even while they also taught what Mormons regard as false doctrines. However, this explanation doesn’t really address the point, which is that the church fathers were the first Christian teachers to articulate an explicit doctrine of the deification of believers.

CFR. Because from the LDS perspective, that's not true, and we have evidence from the scriptures to show it.

There is no suggestion in any of these quotations that God the Father was a man who progressed to Godhood, or that God has not always been God. There is also no notion in any of these statements that human beings preexisted in heaven as gods in embryo prior to their physical lives here on earth. The core theological and anthropological premises of Joseph Smith’s doctrine of exaltation are completely absent from these patristic quotations—and indeed are absent from the corpus of the church fathers’ writings as a whole.

That's not true either. Clement and Origen both taught a premortal life concept.

What Justin teaches here is incompatible with the LDS doctrine that we were God’s preexistent children in heaven and that we came here to make progress toward “growing up” to become full-fledged Gods like our Heavenly Father.

There is actually nothing in that chunk of Justin's writings that you quoted that contradicts LDS doctrine:

"But as my discourse is not intended to touch on this point [the fall of Satan], but to prove to you that the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons, and yet they, becoming like Adam and Eve, work out death for themselves; let the interpretation of the Psalm be held just as you wish, yet thereby it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming ‘gods,’ and of having power to become sons of the Highest; and shall be each by himself judged and condemned like Adam and Eve."

There is nothing there that the Church doesn't teach. We believe that we are already children of God, but we may be "born again" as children of Christ through faith in Him. No contradiction.

Tertullian here insists that certain properties belong to God alone, and that human beings will never possess those unique properties of deity. They will be “gods” only in the sense that God will declare those to be “gods” whom he graciously deems deserving of this honor, not by virtue of them attaining “any property” that qualifies them as deities. The point here must be understood very precisely. Tertullian is not merely saying that human beings can become gods only by God’s “grace.” The LDS Church could (and in some contexts does) use these same words. Tertullian, however, means by this statement that human beings are accorded a status of “gods” as a gracious honor and not, as Joseph Smith taught, that they are transformed (even if by “grace”) into beings possessing the same properties as God.

I don't see a contradiction at all. Tertullian seems to be preaching LDS doctrine to me:

"Truth, however, maintains the unity of God in such a way as to insist that whatever belongs to God Himself belongs to Him alone. For so will it belong to Himself if it belong to Him alone; and therefore it will be impossible that another god should be admitted, when it is permitted to no other being to possess anything of God. Well, then, you say, we ourselves at that rate possess nothing of God. But indeed we do, and shall continue to do— only it is from Him that we receive it, and not from ourselves. For we shall be even gods, if we shall deserve to be among those of whom He declared, I have said, You are gods, and, God stands in the congregation of the gods. But this comes of His own grace, not from any property in us, because it is He alone who can make gods."

What part of that exactly is not LDS doctrine?

Every quotation that Peterson (and other Mormon scholars and apologists before him) quote from the church fathers is like the ones just considered from Justin and Tertullian. If one reads the statements in context, one discovers that they express a doctrine that in substance is obviously different from the doctrine of Joseph Smith.

Are we just supposed to take your word for it?

God, according to Joseph Smith (notably in the Book of Abraham), was also not the sole creator or maker of the world. Rather, a plurality of Gods got together and “organized” this world into its present form.

...Under the direction of God the Father. It might be important to add that in.

I'll continue later.

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

Oh boy.

CFR that the Church teaches that apostasy took place during the second, third, and fourth centuries. The Church doesn't claim to know when the apostasy happened, despite what the "traditional LDS position" is. Furthermore, citing only two sources for what you claim is the "traditional LDS position," only one of which was written by a General Authority, doesn't cut it. You're going to have to provide more sources than that; otherwise, it looks like you simply made an assertion and found two random quotes that back it up.

Here we go again. I quote from Answering Anti-Mormons for Dummies, "When in trouble, claim that some secondary point in the anti-Mormon's argument rests on a matter that is not technically, officially, explicitly, and undeniably LDS doctrine. Since this applies to practically everything that might be said about LDS doctrine, this strategy may be safely used in almost any situation."

I provided two quotations to show that the conventional, at least, LDS view is what I stated. So I'll call your CFR with the references already given, and raise you. Kent P. Jackson -- perhaps the leading LDS scholar writing on the subject of the Great Apostasy -- wrote the following in the Ensign magazine (the official magazine of the LDS Church), in an article published on LDS.org (the LDS Church's official website, don'cha know):

"Latter-day Saint theology asserts that the church of the Savior and his Apostles in the Old World came to an end within a century after its formation" ("Early Signs of the Apostasy," Ensign, Dec. 1984).

In a footnote, Jackson provides the following references in support of the above statement:

"Mark E. Petersen, in Conference Report, April 1979, pp. 29–30 (Ensign, May 1979, pp. 21–22); Which Church is Right? (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), pp. 8–9; Hugh W. Nibley, 'Christ Among the Ruins,' Ensign, July 1983, p. 16; Talmage, The Great Apostasy, pp. 44–47."

The only serious challenge that might be mounted to my statement is that, in the view of some LDS teachers, it was already "an accomplished fact" by the end of the first century:

"Evidence indicates that by the end of the first century, the great apostasy was an accomplished fact" (Andrew Skinner, "Apostasy, Restoration, and Lessons in Faith," Ensign, Dec. 1995).

One LDS manual states that the Great Apostasy was basically in effect when the NT apostles died, but "deepened" during the next two or three centuries:

"The Apostasy, hastened by the death of the Apostles in the latter half of the first century, gradually deepened during the years that followed. By the fourth century there was hardly a trace of the Church of Jesus Christ that was recognizable, and the 'long, dark night' was well underway" (Church history in the Fulness of Times [2003], chapter 1, "Prelude to the Restoration").

I could go on and on, but these quotations, all found on LDS.org, should settle the matter. Your CFR was frivolous and a diversion from the issue. Now it's your turn. CFR that the LDS Church doesn't know when the Great Apostasy took place. I hope you can verify that to be so, because it'll cause a whole lot more problems than finding to the contrary. After all, if it doesn't know when it happened, it might not have happened at all. Perhaps it happened in the nineteenth century. There's a better case for that view than for the view that it happened in the second, third, or fourth century!

I had stated that "the church fathers were the first Christian teachers to articulate an explicit doctrine of the deification of believers." You replied:

CFR. Because from the LDS perspective, that's not true, and we have evidence from the scriptures to show it.

Okay. For my reference, I will cite LDS scholar Keith Norman, who did his doctoral dissertation on Athanasius's doctrine of deification. According to Norman in his article "Divinization: The Forgotten Teaching of Early Christianity" (Sunstone, Winter 1975), Irenaeus was "the first explicit advocate of Divinization" among orthodox writers (17). Norman speculates that the gnostic emphasis on divinization "prompted Irenaeus to bring out into the open or explain the Church's version of theosis" (18), which of course assumes that up to that point it had not been explicitly stated out in the open (e.g., in the New Testament writings).

Now it's your turn. CFR that there are explicit statements in the scriptures, earlier than the church fathers, by Christian teachers affirming deification (that believers can become gods).

You wrote:

Clement and Origen both taught a premortal life concept.

I acknowledged that Origen did so. However, even Origen did not believe that the spirits of human beings were eternally preexistent and uncreated.

That's enough for now.

[Anakin7]

I tried again and the request popped up as before, but I couldn't see an X in the upper right corner, nor anywhere on the ad. Oh well...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I clicked the link and went straight to the article by Rob Bowman.Hummmmmm ?.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Edited November 5, 2011 by Anakin7

[KevinG]

I clicked the link and went straight to the article by Rob Bowman.Hummmmmm ?.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Robs got special code for Wade.

[Bernard Gui]

I have finally posted Part Five of my series of blog articles on Parchment and Pen responding to Dan Peterson's article on theosis. Part Five deals with the issue of the early church fathers and Joseph Smith's doctrine of exaltation.

Of course, it is theoretically possible that the church fathers might have been right about humans becoming gods and wrong about other things. A Mormon could argue that the Great Apostasy led to the loss of divine authority and to the gradual loss of some doctrinal truths but not others, with the doctrine of people becoming gods as one that was not lost right away. This might seem a sufficient explanation for how it was that the church fathers believed in humans becoming deified even while they also taught what Mormons regard as false doctrines. However, this explanation doesn’t really address the point, which is that the church fathers were the first Christian teachers to articulate an explicit doctrine of the deification of believers.

Unless we know all the utterances of Jesus and the 12, we cannot say with any certainty that the church fathers were the first Christian teachers to articulate an explicit doctrine of the deification of believers. It is just as likely they were repeating earlier, but changing, doctrine that has not survived in written form. In fact, I would lean more to that explanation than that they made it up out of whole cloth. Are you sure we possess everything that was spoken and written during the ministry of Christ and the apostles?

Dr. Peterson clearly points out that theosis, meaning God's will that his children become

like him and has provided the way for that to happen, is an ancient Judeo-Christian teaching.

The ancient doctrine of theosis and the LDS doctrine of exaltation share that fundamental premise. Your documentation of

this fact happily confirms Dan's argument. He is not claiming that it was a full-blown exact parallel with the plan of exaltation as revealed to Joseph Smith.

It is not unreasonable to conclude Joseph in fact restored the true doctrine of theosis, which is the

doctrine of exaltation, after it had been altered by Greco/Christian theologians.

Bernard

Edited November 5, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[irenaeus]

I acknowledged that Origen did so. However, even Origen did not believe that the spirits of human beings were eternally preexistent and uncreated.

That's enough for now.

That's the main issue in all these discussions of theosis vs. exaltation: is God of the same essence/substance as we are? Is there some part of us that is eternal in the same way that God is eternal? On this question the early church fathers, from Aristides and Irenaeus to Clement and Origen are in agreement - God is the only being that has always existed, everything else, including ourselves, is a creation of that God. All of their statements on men becoming god must be interpreted in the context of that fundamental Creator/creature distinction, otherwise we are just inserting our own notions into their writings.

Clement of Alexandria (from his Stromata):

“For when he says, "That which was from the beginning," he touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-existent with the Father. There was; then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreate.”

“But God has no natural relation to us, as the authors of the heresies will have it; neither on the supposition of His having made us of nothing, nor on that of having formed us from matter; since the former did not exist at all, and the latter is totally distinct from God unless we shall dare to say that we are a part of Him, and of the same essence as God. And I know not how one, who knows God, can bear to hear this when he looks to our life, and sees in what evils we are involved. … But God being by nature rich in pity, in consequence of His own goodness, cares for us, though neither portions of Himself, nor by nature His children. And this is the greatest proof of the goodness of God: that such being our relation to Him, and being by nature wholly estranged, He nevertheless cares for us. For the affection in animals to their progeny is natural, and the friendship of kindred minds is the result of intimacy. But the mercy of God is rich toward us, who are in no respect related to Him; I say either in our essence or nature, or in the peculiar energy of our essence, but only in our being the work of His will. And him who willingly, with discipline and teaching, accepts the knowledge of the truth, He calls to adoption, which is the greatest advancement of all."

Origen, De Principiis:

“The particular points clearly delivered in the teaching of the apostles are as follow: First, that there is one God, who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed, called all things into being.”

[irenaeus]

The only serious challenge that might be mounted to my statement is that, in the view of some LDS teachers, it was already "an accomplished fact" by the end of the first century:

"Evidence indicates that by the end of the first century, the great apostasy was an accomplished fact" (Andrew Skinner, "Apostasy, Restoration, and Lessons in Faith," Ensign, Dec. 1995).

One LDS manual states that the Great Apostasy was basically in effect when the NT apostles died, but "deepened" during the next two or three centuries:

"The Apostasy, hastened by the death of the Apostles in the latter half of the first century, gradually deepened during the years that followed. By the fourth century there was hardly a trace of the Church of Jesus Christ that was recognizable, and the 'long, dark night' was well underway" (Church history in the Fulness of Times [2003], chapter 1, "Prelude to the Restoration").

A great apostasy must have been essentially completed by the end of the first century because as soon as we start looking at the writings from the end of the first century and from the second century we see a church organization and body of doctrine that is not similiar to the present LDS church. If anything, those early writings can be seen as supporting the claims of the Catholic and the Orthodox churches.

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob wrote:

The roots of this Eastern Orthodox doctrine [of deification] are to be found in the teachings of the early church fathers,

The "roots" of deification are found in the New Testament (as all the Greek Fathers believed):

Mt. 5:28; John 10:34/Ps 82:6; Jn. 14:12, 17; Jn 17:3, 21-23; 1 John 1:16, 3:2; 1 Cor. 13:12; Rom. 8:32, 29; Phil 3:21; 2 Cor 3:18, 8:2; Rev. 3:21.

See the following studies.

Gorman, M. Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Soteriology, (Eerdmans, 2009)

Gross, Jules. The Divinization of the Christian According to the Greek Fathers, trans. Paul A. Onica. (Anaheim, Calif.: A & C Press, 2002/1938), 80-98

Keating, D. Deification and Grace, (2007), 61-72

Maloney, George, The Undreamed has Happened: God Lives Within Us, (2003).

Russell, N. The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, (2004), 79-89

Deification is not a Greek Orthodox doctrine. It is a New Testament doctrine that the Greek Orthodox have preserved (and modified).

Edited November 5, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

The Great Apostasy is not an event. It is a process. It began in the first century (it is mentioned in the NT), and continues until today. The Great Apostasy does not imply a complete loss of all truth from Christianity. All Christian churches preserve a great deal of authentic Christian truth. None of them, however, have the "fulness" of the Gospel, or divine authorization to act in God's name.

That the Greek Orthodox church preserves many authentic ancient Christian doctrines--such as deification--does not mean there was no apostasy in Greek Orthodoxy (e.g. development of relic and icon veneration, Mariolatry, priestcraft, etc.). It also does not imply that the GO concept of deification is identical with the NT concept of deification. The GO ideas of deification changed and developed throughout history. From the LDS perspective, the GO have preserved "corrupt" or confused doctrines of deification. Even if the idea exists among GO, it still needs to be "restored" to a more accurate and complete version.

At any rate, Rob is equivocating when he claims the doctrine of deification was never lost. By the 1830s it was most certainly lost to Western Christianity.

[mfbukowski]

Rob wrote:

The "roots" of deification are found in the New Testament (as all the Greek Fathers believed):

Mt. 5:28; John 10:34/Ps 82:6; Jn. 14:12, 17; Jn 17:3, 21-23; 1 John 1:16, 3:2; 1 Cor. 13:12; Rom. 8:32, 29; Phil 3:21; 2 Cor 3:18, 8:2; Rev. 3:21.

See the following studies.

Gorman, M. Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Soteriology, (Eerdmans, 2009)

Gross, Jules. The Divinization of the Christian According to the Greek Fathers, trans. Paul A. Onica. (Anaheim, Calif.: A & C Press, 2002/1938), 80-98

Keating, D. Deification and Grace, (2007), 61-72

Maloney, George, The Undreamed has Happened: God Lives Within Us, (2003).

Russell, N. The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, (2004), 79-89

Deification is not a Greek Orthodox doctrine. It is a New Testament doctrine that the Greek Orthodox have preserved (and modified).

There you go again, trying to confuse us all by bringing up the facts.

Cheesh.

[wenglund]

Robs got special code for Wade.

If so, he may be doing me a big favor. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

If interested, in the last several weeks there have been a series of fascinating threads started on the topic of theosis (deification, divination, etc.) that disclose a wealth of information about the ancients, not only in terms of statements they have made directly about the subject matter, but also indirectly in relation to various ascension rituals that we today may not recognize as such. I have sure learned a lot from those threads and researching in connection with those threads--including useful material from Bill Hamblin. I will see about editing in later to this post some links to those threads.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[irenaeus]

The Great Apostasy is not an event. It is a process. It began in the first century (it is mentioned in the NT), and continues until today. The Great Apostasy does not imply a complete loss of all truth from Christianity. All Christian churches preserve a great deal of authentic Christian truth. None of them, however, have the "fulness" of the Gospel, or divine authorization to act in God's name.

That the Greek Orthodox church preserves many authentic ancient Christian doctrines--such as deification--does not mean there was no apostasy in Greek Orthodoxy (e.g. development of relic and icon veneration, Mariolatry, priestcraft, etc.). It also does not imply that the GO concept of deification is identical with the NT concept of deification. The GO ideas of deification changed and developed throughout history. From the LDS perspective, the GO have preserved "corrupt" or confused doctrines of deification. Even if the idea exists among GO, it still needs to be "restored" to a more accurate and complete version.

At any rate, Rob is equivocating when he claims the doctrine of deification was never lost. By the 1830s it was most certainly lost to Western Christianity.

Fine, if it was a process then the process must have been essentially complete by the second century at the latest. Because by that point,the most important Christian beliefs had already come to differ fundamentally from those of the LDS faith: things like the nature of God, the nature of man, the organization and authority of the church, the eucharist as the body and blood of Christ and a sacrifice, the special status of the church at Rome, etc etc. The most basic differences between orthodox Christianity and the LDS faith were already firmly in place by the time we get to people like Ignatius of Antioch,or Irenaeus. The main thing dividing the Mormon church from the Eastern Orthodox or the Roman Catholics are not issues like the veneration of saints/icons, fixed prayers, or the exalted status of Mary. The main thing is the nature of God, and the nature and continuity of the church as the body of Christ.

[irenaeus]

There you go again, trying to confuse us all by bringing up the facts.

Cheesh.

I don't think any Orthodox or Catholic believers would question the assertion that deification (properly understood) is a teaching of the New Testament. Like other doctrines of the faith, it was developed and refined over time, but the essential belief would be considered to have apostolic foundations.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "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."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "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."81

78 2 Pt 1:4.

79 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.

80 St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.

81 St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4.

[juliann]

When I first ventured online in the 90s, probably the most mocked tenet of the LDS church was "men can become Gods". Only they were completely ignorant of theosis and didn't realize that they needed to separate Mormon doctrine from theosis itself. Good times. If Mormons have done anything, we have been responsible for making the EVs acknowledge theosis. Then I observed them trying to claim that they had really believed in it all along....just in a different kinda way that nobody noticed.

Since LDS have never claimed that our belief was identical to the ECFs in every way this is really a big wild goose chase. Or maybe just a smelly red herring. But it is fun to watch fundamentalists try to hitch a ride on the theosis bandwagon even if they are a couple of thousand years too late.

[irenaeus]

When I first ventured online in the 90s, probably the most mocked tenet of the LDS church was "men can become Gods". Only they were completely ignorant of theosis and didn't realize that they needed to separate Mormon doctrine from theosis itself. Good times. If Mormons have done anything, we have been responsible for making the EVs acknowledge theosis. Then I observed them trying to claim that they had really believed in it all along....just in a different kinda way that nobody noticed.

Since LDS have never claimed that our belief was identical to the ECFs in every way this is really a big wild goose chase. Or maybe just a smelly red herring. But it is fun to watch fundamentalists try to hitch a ride on the theosis bandwagon even if they are a couple of thousand years too late.

I can't speak for evangelicals since I am of a different religious persuasion, but there does seem to be a broader trend in recent decades of evangelicals (and other Protestants) coming to terms with the historic Christian tradition and the early church fathers, including, but not limited to, the doctrine of theosis. Sometimes this goes as far as people converting to Orthodoxy or Catholicism (there's actually a cottage industry for publishing those kind of 'conversion' stories). How much of a role the LDS-EV interaction has played in all of this I don't really know, but it is an interesting suggestion.

[mfbukowski]

I can't speak for evangelicals since I am of a different religious persuasion ...

Yes I think I remember you from the Catholic board I used to hang out on- and your vocabulary seems to point in that direction also- welcome to the board.

[diglot]

A great apostasy must have been essentially completed by the end of the first century because as soon as we start looking at the writings from the end of the first century and from the second century we see a church organization and body of doctrine that is not similiar to the present LDS church. If anything, those early writings can be seen as supporting the claims of the Catholic and the Orthodox churches.

I think thats a bit of an exaggeration. Early Christianity was quite a variegated phenomena, and I don't think you can make a sweeping generalization like that.

If this isn't going off-topic too much, I would be interested in knowing what you think in early Christianity specifically supports the claims of the Catholic or Orthodox churches.

[irenaeus]

Yes I think I remember you from the Catholic board I used to hang out on- and your vocabulary seems to point in that direction also- welcome to the board.

Thanks for the welcome! I'll probably end up reading more than posting on this board. I like to see how different people approach their theology and beliefs. Its educational for me and helps me develop and refine my own views. But these religious discussion boards can be a huge time sink for me personally and I should probably take a sabbatical from Mormon related forums for a year or two. But like a moth to a flame, I can't seem to resist.

[diglot]

I like to see how different people approach their theology and beliefs. Its educational for me and helps me develop and refine my own views. But these religious discussion boards can be a huge time sink for me personally and I should probably take a sabbatical from Mormon related forums for a year or two. But like a moth to a flame, I can't seem to resist.

Totally agree!

[altersteve]

Fine, if it was a process then the process must have been essentially complete by the second century at the latest. Because by that point,the most important Christian beliefs had already come to differ fundamentally from those of the LDS faith: things like the nature of God, the nature of man, the organization and authority of the church, the eucharist as the body and blood of Christ and a sacrifice, the special status of the church at Rome, etc etc. The most basic differences between orthodox Christianity and the LDS faith were already firmly in place by the time we get to people like Ignatius of Antioch,or Irenaeus. The main thing dividing the Mormon church from the Eastern Orthodox or the Roman Catholics are not issues like the veneration of saints/icons, fixed prayers, or the exalted status of Mary. The main thing is the nature of God, and the nature and continuity of the church as the body of Christ.

The apostasy was never "essentially complete." There has always been some degree of truth. The "main thing" that was lost and subsequently restored was priesthood authority. The apostasy (loss) of true doctrine took place very, very gradually and was never "complete" by any means.

Realize that how we define "apostasy" is not really a time where there is no (or less) truth, but rather when God's priesthood authority is not operating on the earth, no matter how much or how little truth is being taught. This has happened several times. The opposite of "apostasy" is "dispensation," a period of time when priesthood authority is on the earth and the Church is being led by a prophet whom God has personally chosen as His "mouthpiece," through whom He can speak to the Church as whole. In other words, apostasy = no priesthood, which = no revelation (and by "revelation" I mean revelation for the whole Church; personal revelation never went away). It doesn't really have to do with truth. It's just that without revelation, false doctrines will slowly creep in. It is, after all, the rock of revelation upon which the Church is to be built. This is what we believe Matthew 16:15-18 means.

A lot of people misunderstand this. It all starts with a loss of priesthood authority.

Edited November 5, 2011 by altersteve