Lds Apologetics And The Early Church Fathers

[Spammer]

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

Hmm..I'm unaware of any traditional Christians who believe God is a gas of some kind. I know many who believe he is transcendent, beyond time and space, and immaterial.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Spammer

[Spammer]

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

My question in this thread is not related to whether there was an apostasy and restoration, but rather why Ash and other LDS apologists quote orthodox christian, trinitarian church fathers to show that "doctrines unique and/or critical to the LDS Church were present in the pre Catholic church". This seems strange to me. In my mind, quoting these church fathers only goes to show that the doctrine of deification was never lost, so no restoration was necessary. It has always been taught by the orthodox catholic churches from the beginning. I'm unware of any post-New Testament church father who teaches the LDS version: 1) God is a glorified, exalted man and 2) we can become what he is.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Spammer

[Spammer]

Darren10, before I address your question about how much the traditional churches share in Ash's conclusion, I'd like to address your point that "All of these fathers are pre Nicea and therefore predate the trinitarian formulae which began in the fourth century. Therefore, these fathers being trinitarian believers is questionable".

That assumes that the trinitarian formula was invented at Nicea. The orthodox catholic view is that Nicea only confirmed what had always been believed and the council issued the first dogmatic formulation of that belief. A quick read through all three of the author's cited by Ash (Irenaeus, Clement, and Hippolytus) show conclusively that the core elements of the trinitarian formulation (fully articulated by Nicea) were believed and taught by all three a century or more before Nicea. In fact, it's clear to me that the only way that those fathers' writings can be read through an LDS lens is to abuse the sources, intentionally or not. Maybe Ash just hasn't taken the time to read through the books and is unware how traditionally trinitarian their writings are. The core trinitarian beliefs are that God is uncreated, immaterial, transcendent, beyond time and space, a spirit, One, inconceivable, ineffable, incomprehensible, and formed all things out of nothing. He is also Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. One divine essence in three persons.

In his major work Against Heresies, Irenaeus asserts that God the Father "cannot be measured"; he is "incomprehensible", and "invisible". He is "impassible", "beyond comprehension". "boundless", and "ineffable". "It is impossible for man to see God." The Father is only known through his Son, the Logos, who makes the Father known in his own incarnate person. "He is always known through Him by whose means He ordained all things. Now this is His Word, our Lord Jesus Christ". For Iraneaus, matter and God are not co-eternal, contra Joseph Smith. Irenaeus writes that God, who has a "spiritual and divine essence," "formed all things...out of that which did not previously exist"; God "created matter itself"; and is "Uncreated"; we human beings are "created". Irenaeus asserts that "While men, indeed, cannot make anything out of nothing, but only out of matter already existing, yet God is in this point pre-eminently superior to men, in that He Himself called into being the substance of His creation, when previously it had no existence". Again, "having caused that from what had no being, all things should come into existence". This is ex nihilo talk. Irenaeus in rather insulting terms asserts that, as the only Uncreated, God the Father has no Father of his own. "To say that God is the image of another Father, is to play the part both of wanderers from the truth, and of absolutely foolish and stupid persons". Irenaeus is, therefore, calling those Mormons who believe Heavenly Father had his own Heavenly Father "foolish and stupid persons." He quite disdains this speculative LDS teaching that came out of Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse. Irenaeus adds that those who believe that the Father had a Father are "certainly not looking up to celestial things, but truly descending into a profound abyss (Bythus) of madness". He also insults those who believe there is no essential distinction between God and humans: "they wish to be even now like God their Creator, and they who are more destitute of reason than dumb animals insist that there is no distinction between the uncreated God and man". Irenaeus denies that any part of humans, e.g. their eternal intelligence, is uncreated. Everything, including man, is created out of nothing. This is contrary to LDS teaching about the pre-existence and eternal intelligences out of which God formed our spirits. Irenaeus asserts that all of his teaching originates from "tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches". He provides the standard Catholic list of the bishops of Rome in unbroken succession, beginning with Peter and ending with Eleutherius, Bishop of Rome and pope at the time he wrote Against Heresies. He cites Polycarp, the Apostle John's student, who Irenaeus knew when he was young, as one who also belongs to Irenaeus's own Catholic tradition; and lauds the church of Ephesus for preserving the apostolic tradition whole and intact. Irenaeus teaches traditional Catholic theology about the nature of God and man. [All of these quotes come from Against Heresies, Book 3, Ch. 1-5; Book 4, Ch. 19-20, 37-38].

There's more of the same from Clement of Alexandria. Clement's God, the same as Irenaeus's, is utterly alien to LDS theology. Clements forumulation is a platonic trinitarianism, expressed through the forms of Greek philosophy. God is "incorporeal", "indivisible", and "infinite". He is "above all speech, all conception, all thought, can never be committed to writing, being inexpressible." God is bodiless; he is a spirit. He does not have "hands, and feet, and mouth, and eyes, and going in and coming out, and resentments and threats." He attributes the use of these attributes of God to the Hebrews but calls them "allegorical". God is "the First Cause" and "is not then in space, but above both space, and time, and name, and conception". Clement's God transcends utterly. We "may reach somehow to the conception of the Almighty" only by "abstracting all that belongs to bodies and things called incorporeal". Doing so, we know "not what He is, but what He is not". This is the aphophatic theology of the Orthodox Church. Clement asserts that "form and motion, or standing, or a throne, or place, or right hand or left, are not at all to be conceived as belonging to the Father of the universe". God is transcendent and unknowable as he is in himself. He is known "only by His own power" and "the grace of knowledge is from Him by the Son". He says "For the region of God is hard to attain; which Plato called the region of ideas". God is "incapable of being circumscribed" and is "invisible". He is "ineffable"; "beyond expression by words"; He is the "darkness". He describes the "impossibility of expressing God" and "what is divine is unutterable by human power". Clement quotes John the Beloved and sums up God's ineffability and incomprehensibility by saying: "John the apostle says: 'No man hath seen God at any time. The only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Fahter, He hath declared Him,' calling invisibility and ineffableness the bosom of God. Hence some have called it the Depth, as containing and enbosoming all things, inaccessible and boundless. This discourse respecting God is most difficult to handle. For since the first principle of everything is difficult to find out, the absolutely first and oldest principle, which is the cause of all other things being and having been, is difficult to exhibit. For how can that be expressed which is neither genus, nor difference, nor species, nor individual, nor number; nay more, is neither an event, nor that to which an event happens? No one can rightly express Him wholly. For on account of His greatness He is ranked as the All, and is the Father of the universe. Nor are any parts to be predicated of Him. For the One is indivisible; wherefore also it is infinite, not considered with reference to inscrutability, but with reference to its being without dimensions, and not having a limit. And therefore it is without form and name. And if we name it, we do not do so properly, terming it either the One, or the Good, or Mind, or Absolute Being, or Father, or God, or Creator or Lord. We speak not as supplying His name; but for want, we use good names, in order that the mind may have these as points of support, so as not to err in other respects. For each one by itself does not express God; but all together are indicative of the power of the Omnipotent. For predicates are expressed either from what belongs to things themselves, or from their mutual relation. But none of these are admissible in reference to God. Nor any more is He apprehended by the science of demonstration. For it depends on primary and better known principles. But there is nothing antecedent to the Unbegotten." Clement concludes in trinitarian Christian fashion: "It remains that we understand, then, the Unknown, by divine grace, and by the word alone that proceeds from Him; as Luke in the Acts of the Apostles relates that Paul said, 'Men of Athens, I preceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For in walking about, and beholding the objects of your worship, I found an altar on which was inscribed, To the Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, Him I declare to you.'". To support his arguments, Clement quotes Christian scripture and Greek philosophy throughout. Clement's God is not a glorified, exalted man. He is the ineffable, incomprehensiible, immaterial, transcendent God of trinititarian thought: the unknown Father who is revealed in the Son through the Spirit. [All of these quotes come from The Stromata, Book 5, Ch. 11-12].

Hippolytus is in the same tradition. This is no surprise as he was Irenaeus's student. Like Irenaeus, Hippolytus considers heretical the belief that God and matter are co-eternal. He criticizes those like Hermogenes, who "asserted that God made all things out of matter coeval with Himself". He asserts that "The first and only (one God), both Creator and Lord of all, had nothing coeval with Himself". God is "solitary and supreme". He is "One, alone in Himself". Regarding the creation, Hippolytus says "By an exercise of His will He created things that are, which antecedently had no existence, except that He willed to make them". He also says "The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God. Now the world was made from nothing". More ex nihilo. Only the Logos (Christ the Son) was made out something that was pre-existing and that something was the Father himself. God "by an exercise of reflection, brought forth the Logos first; not the word in the sense of being articulated by voice, but as a ratiocination of the universe, conceived and residing in the divine mind. Him alone He produced from existing things; for the Father Himself constituted existence, and the being born from Him was the cause of all things that are produced". As "The Logos was in the Father Himself", he has "as a voice in Himself, the ideas conceived in the Father." Christ the Logos was the agent who "one by one completed each object of creation, thus pleasing God". For Hippolytus, this Logos, "being the substance of God" who made the world "from nothing" is "the first begotten Child of the Father, the voice of the Dawn antecedent to the Morning Star." The Father willed that this Logos should no longer only be spoken of by the prophets, "being obscurely proclaimed". God sent the Logos forth so "that He should be manifested, so that we could see Him with our own eyes," so that the Logos could be "corporally present among us". The corporeality of the Logos (the Incarnation of God) was necessary. He was "made out of the compound of our humanity" so that we can "imitate the Teacher" and so that through everything He endured for us, "toil", "hunger", "thirst", the "quietude of slumber", and the "Passion", He became "obedient unto death, and manifested His resurrection". According to Hippolytus, "by means of this knowledge" and by the action of this distinctly un-Mormon Logos, we are able to "be deified and begotten unto immortaility", a "companion of the Deity" and "a co-heir with Christ". [from The Refutation of All Heresies, Book 10, Ch. 28-30].

I don't know how anyone can conclude from all of the foregoing that those church father's weren't believers in the foundational trinitarian doctrines. That foundation is the proper context for understanding what Irenaeus, Clement, and Hippolytus meant by deification/theosis. Their view and the LDS view of deification is worlds apart. Given how alien the trinitarian God is to LDS cosmology, what those church fathers mean by deification and what Mormons mean by deification is so different as to be mutually exclusive. Again, I'd like to know - why on earth is Ash quoting these guys if he hopes to demonstrate that unique LDS teachings were original but lost?

Edited May 16, 2013 by Spammer

[Stone holm]

Hmm..I'm unaware of any traditional Christians who believe God is a gas of some kind. I know many who believe he is transcendent, beyond time and space, and immaterial.

Yeah, its as close to that in a figurative sense as you can come up with "without body parts, passion, etc. etc." -- everywhere, but nowhere in particular, kind of like gas....

[Stone holm]

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

He is right though, the Book of Mormon doesn't really plug many of those holes, its the D & C and to a certain extent the Pearl of Great Price that contain the Scriptures that make us Mormons peculiar, other than the fact that we believe in the Book of Mormon -- the Book of Mormon itself isn't particularly radical, just the belief that it is true is radical

[Spammer]

Yeah, its as close to that in a figurative sense as you can come up with "without body parts, passion, etc. etc." -- everywhere, but nowhere in particular, kind of like gas....

Except a gas is "somewhere". It has boundaries and a limit that can be measured. It is material. "Gas" comes naturally to mind, since our only reference points are material and rooted in space-time. We imagine gas when we have trouble conceiving an entity that transcends time and space.

[Darren10]

Spammer;

Thank you for that somewhat thorough reply.

You spoke in great measure about ex nihilo creationism as a means to connect specific early Christian Fathers to foundational trinitarian thought. Here's my thoughts on your commentary.

The following link may or may not be familiar to you and may or may not interest you. But FAIR has a very good link which addresses some, if not all, of the subject matter which you presented here. All my links are provided below. Regarding ex niliho the following may be read from FAIR under the first section called, "Summary conclusion":

Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.^[1]

Further down, under the section "Early Christian beliefs about creation", you may read a bit regarding the origin of ex nihilo creationism injected into Christian theology:

...The first Christian thinker to articulate the rudiments of a doctrine of creatio ex nihilo was the Gnostic theologian Basilides, who flourished in the second quarter of the second century. Basilides worked out an elaborate cosmogony as he sought to think through the implications of Christian teaching in light of the platonic cosmogony. He rejected the analogy of the human maker, the craftsman who carves a piece of wood, as an anthropomorphism that severely limited the power of God. God, unlike mortals, created the world out of ‘non-existing’ matter. He first brought matter into being through the creation of ‘seeds’, and it is this created stuff that is fashioned, according to His will, into the cosmos.^[3]

I find the irony here is that while Iraneaus condemned the works and writings of the Gnostics, he embraced one core doctrine of theirs: ex nihilo creation. In my view there's also irony in that the Gnostics were officially declared heretics yet ex nihilo has been embraced profoundly into traditional Christian theology and its gateway into Christianity was through the Gnostics. The Gnostic Basilides is credited, according to FAIR's link, as where ex nihilo belief began among the early Christians. Do you know of any ex nihilo teachings predating Basilides?

In addition to the FAIR link of ex nihilo creation, there's a great article published by the Maxwell Institute which addresses the same topic as FAIR but with much more details. It is called, "Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought reviewed by Blake T. Ostler". here's the intro:

In their contribution to The New Mormon Challenge entitled "Craftsman or Creator? An Examination of the Mormon Doctrine of Creation and a Defense of Creatio ex nihilo," Paul Copan and William Lane Craig assert, among other things, that the notion of creation ex nihilo—creation out of nothing—is biblical.[1]For good measure, they also assert that this doctrine was not an invention of the philosophers but has always been the well-established "Christian" belief. In so doing, they argue against the vast majority of biblical and classical scholars. I contend that their arguments on these points are seriously flawed, that there are compelling reasons to support the view of the majority of biblical scholars that the Bible teaches creation out of a preexisting chaos, that Copan and Craig have seriously misrepresented the biblical data to read into it their doctrine of absolutist creation, and that their argument that the doctrine of creation ex nihilo was not a philosophical development is uninformed and fails to grasp the essential distinctions necessary to make sense of the doctrine as it developed in patristic theology. I present good reasons why the vast majority of scholars agree that the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo was first formulated around AD 200 in arguments with the Gnostics, Stoics, and Middle Platonists.

You may also consider Philo of alexandria who clearly supported an ex materia argument for the creation. Under the Philo link below you can click of "Philo's Doctrine of Creation" and read in subsection a: "Philo’s Model of Creation" the following:

Though Philo’s model of creation comes from Plato’s Timaeus, the direct agent of creation is not God himself (described in Plato as Demiurge, Maker, Artificer), but the Logos. Philo believes that the Logos is “the man of God” (Conf. 41) or the shadow of God that was used as an instrument and a pattern of all creation (LA 3.96). The Logos converted unqualified, unshaped preexistent matter, which Philo describes as “destitute of arrangement, of quality, of animation, of distinctive character and full of disorder and confusion,” (Op. 22) into four primordial elements:

For it is out of that essence that God created everything, without indeed touching it himself, for it was not lawful for the all-wise and all-blessed God to touch materials which were all misshapen and confused, but he created them by the agency of his incorporeal powers, of which the proper name is Ideas, which he so exerted that every genus received its proper form (LA 1.329).

Philo was a Greek educated Jew and my main point in brining him up was the distinct belief in ex materia creation before Basilides. My understanding is that even today you'll find Orthodox Jews who believe in ex materia creation. Such does not disdain God in any way, shape or form. In fact, I find ex nihilo thinking inherently flawed. After all, if two creators one created humans who have to depend on him to overcome their problems and the other who created humans who can overcome their problems on their own because he created them as such, than who would the greater or "better" creator be? I hope you can see the difficulty in answering that question as per Christian (and Judaic) biblical teachings.

You also said of Hyppolytus:

Only the Logos (Christ the Son) was made out something that was pre-existing and that something was the Father himself. God "by an exercise of reflection, brought forth the Logos first; not the word in the sense of being articulated by voice, but as a ratiocination of the universe, conceived and residing in the divine mind. Him alone He produced from existing things; for the Father Himself constituted existence".

First off, is it not against trinitarian creeds to declare that Jesus Christ was "made"? My understanding is that following the creeds, Jesus Christ was not made or created but begotten of the Father. That the Holy Spirit was not made or created nor begotten but proceeded from the Father and the Son. None of this is biblical language but post biblical creedal language used to fromulate the concept of the Holy Trinity.

Second, Hyppolytus' words seem strikingly similar to LDS doctrine of Jesus Christ being created ("formed") from the Father. The LDS belief is that the Father is supreme above all and Jesus was, in the beginning, "like unto God": "And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;".

There's more to address but it's late for me and I don't want to begin typing it only to shut down the computer and lose everything. Perhaps more tomorrow. For now I'll say that I don't think Mike R. Ash is ignorant of the disagreements of early Christian leaders and LDS theology today. mormon's do not view the Early Christian Fathers and people outside the "Great apostasy" and therefore one is to expect what Mormons consider "flawed theology". But it is amazing how certain doctrines unique to LDS beliefs were taught in early Christianity. Ash includes the pre-mortal life (Origen); salvation for the dead; degrees of glory in the after life; and man being heirs to the Father.

FAIR's Mormon view of the creation/Creatio ex nihilo

Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought Blake T. Ostler

Philo of Alexandria

Jesus in the beginning: Abraham 3:24

Edited May 16, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Except a gas is "somewhere". It has boundaries and a limit that can be measured. It is material. "Gas" comes naturally to mind, since our only reference points are material and rooted in space-time. We imagine gas when we have trouble conceiving an entity that transcends time and space.

Tertullian taught God (the father, Son, and Holy Ghost) were corporeal and of a gas substance.

Writers who are usually reckoned orthodox but who lived a century or two centuries before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian and Novatian and Justin Martyr, held some views which would later, in the fourth century, have been branded heretical...Irenaeus and Tertullian both believed that God had not always been a Trinity but had at some point put forth the Son and the Spirit so as to be distinct from him. Tertullian, borrowing from Stoicism, believed that God was material (though only of a very refined material, a kind of thinking gas), so that his statement that Father, Son and Spirit were 'of one substance', beautifully orthodox though it sounds, was of a corporeality which would have profoundly shocked Origen, Athanasius and the Cappadocian theologians, had they known of it.^[7]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Trinity/Nicene_creed

(Under the section, "What were early Christian beliefs on the nature of God?")

AND...This is just for fun:

The most commonly used Biblical citation invoked by the critics is probably John 1:18, which reads “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”

Early Christian author Irenaeus wrote in A.D. 180 that this scripture should be read “For "no man," he says, "hath seen God at any time," unless "the only-begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him]."^[1]

Interestingly, Joseph Smith's revision of the Bible agrees with Irenaeus' reading: No man hath seen God at any time except he hath borne record of the Son . . .(italics represent changes in JST)

Irenaeus' "unless" (or Joseph's "except") makes all the difference. Irenaeus knew that righteous men had seen God in the past:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/No_man_has_seen_God

[Spammer]

Spammer;

Thank you for that somewhat thorough reply.

You spoke in great measure about ex nihilo creationism as a means to connect specific early Christian Fathers to foundational trinitarian thought. Here's my thoughts on your commentary.

The following link may or may not be familiar to you and may or may not interest you. But FAIR has a very good link which addresses some, if not all, of the subject matter which you presented here. All my links are provided below. Regarding ex niliho the following may be read frm FAIR under the first section called, "Summary conclusion":

Further down, under the section "Early Christian beliefs about creation", you may read a bit regarding the origin of ex nilio creationism injected into Christian thrology:

I find the irony here is that while Iraneaus condemned the works and writings of the Gnostics, he embraced one core doctrine of theirs: ex nihilo creation. In my view there's also irony in that the Gnostics were officially declared heretics yet ex nihilo has been embraced profoundly into traditional Christian theology and its gateway into Christianity was through the Gnostics. Also, Basilides is credited according to FAIR's link as where ex nihilo belief began among the early Christians. Do you know of any ex nihilo teachings predating Basilides?

In addition to the FAIR link of ex nihilo creation, there's a great article published by the Maxwell Institute which addresses the same topic as FAIR but with much more details. It is called, "Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought reviewed by Blake T. Ostler". here's the intro:

You may also consider Philo of alexandria who clearly supported an ex materia argument for the creation. Under the Philo link below you can click of "Philo's Doctrine of Creation" and read in subsection a: "Philo’s Model of Creation" the following:

Philo was a Greek educated Jew and my main point in brining him up was the distinct belief in ex materia creation before Basilides. My understanding is that even today you'll fnd Orthodox Jews who believe in ex materia creation. Such does not disdain God in any way, shape or form. In fact, I find ex nihilo thinking inherently flawed. After all, if two creators one created humans who have to depend on him to overcome their problems and the other who created humans who can overcome their problems on their own because he created them as such, than who would the greater or "better" creator be? I hope you can see the difficulty in ansering that question as per Christian (and Judaic) biblical teachings.

Hi Darren10,

Thanks for your reply and for the info. My intent was not to discuss the validity or origin of any particular doctrine, either traditional Christian or LDS. I was just curious what Ash and other LDS apologists (including the FAIR folks) are attempting to accomplish when they quote church fathers who adhere to an essentially trinitarian cosmology. As someone who is a student of both LDS teachings and patristics, such efforts strike me as tantamount to saying, "look here, our unique LDS teachings are ancient and original. Don't believe me? Well, take a look at these ancient writings. They're from early Christians who taught an ex nihilo creation, a bodiless Heavenly Father, and, as a bonus, they believe that some of the things we believe are crazy and heretical. What do you think about that?" How is that kind of approach productive? I can see how someone unfamiliar with what the quoted fathers actually wrote might get excited at the prospect that there really is ancient evidence outside of the Bible for what Mormons believe, but no non-LDS person who knows the sources will be persuaded in the least. In fact, I think that if Irenaeus, Clement, and Hippolytus were alive today, I think they'd likely be offended that they were being quoted in this way. I can easily see each of them penning a new treatise titled Adversus Mormones. Clement's title would be in Greek, but I haven't a clue what that might look like.

You also said of Hyppolytus:

First off, is it not against trinitarian creeds to declare that Jesus Christ was "made"? My understanding is that following the creeds, Jesus Christ was not made or created but begotten of the Father. That the holy Spirit was not made or created nor begotten but proceeded from the Father and the Son. None of this is bilbical language but post biblical creedal language used to fromulate the concept of the Holy Trinity.

Second, Hyppolytus' words seem strikingly similar to LDS doctrine of Jesus Christ being created ("formed") from the Father. The LDS belief is that the Father is supreme above all and Jesus was, in the beginning, "like unto God": "And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;".

Yes, it is against the creeds to declare that Jesus was "made". Arius, a priest in Alexandria and source of the Arian heresy and controversy that led to the first Nicean council, taught that "before Christ was he was not". Like his opponents, he also believed in creatio ex nihilo. His opposition, centered in the church of Antioch, the city where Christians were first called Christians, taught the traditional view that Jesus was unmade and co-eternal with the Father. The controversy was mainly a problem in the East, among the more philosophical Greeks. In that part of the empire, rival factions often fought each other in the streets. They took their cosmology seriously; not a surprise for ancient people who believed that incorrect beliefs and practices have cosmological consequences (floods, earthquakes, stars falling from the sky, etc.). The fact that a debate ensued over this issue, over which Christians throughout the empire took sides, only goes to show that both points of view were held within the universal church simultaneously. The council was called precisely to settle the issue once and for all. Those who think the victory of the majority view at the council (traditional creedal trinitarianism) was due to Constantine's presence and fear of the Emperor are unacquainted with history (the more ignorant among them think Constantine invented the dogma). The fact is, the most violent and systematic of the anti-Christian persecutions, the Diocletian, ended only 12 years before the council. Many of the attending bishops were survivors of the persecution and wore the scars of their tortures at the order of the Roman emperor. By that time, the universal church had for over two centuries been the Church of the Martyrs. To assert that the bishops in attendance were cowed by Constantine is ludicrous. I say all of this only to show that creedal trinitarianism did not originate at the council. The fact that Hippolytus could have believed that Jesus was "made" (assuming he meant what Arius meant), is no surprise. The universal church at the time was known for such such philosophical controversies among parties who were all in communion with each other. Put another way, until a particular point of view was officially anathematized by an ecumenical council, partisans might disagree over philosophical fine points, but they still went to church together and communed at the same cup, just like in the LDS church today there is the majority who accept Book of Mormon historicity and a minority who view the BoM as a divine allegory. Regardless, using such language as Jesus was "made" is not automatically a sign of an Arian view. The creedal view is that Jesus was indeed made and begotten, but not in time. As it "occurs" or "happens" (note the quotations) outside of time, this means his making and begetting is eternal. There has never been a time, since God is outside of time, when the Logos is not being begotten by the Father in an eternal process of generation.

Regarding your comment about Hippolytus and the "LDS doctrine of Jesus Christ being created ("formed") from the Father", the LDS teaching is that the Father "formed" Jesus's spirit out of pre-existent, eternal intelligence, which is co-eternal with the Father but is not ontologically equivalent with the Father himself. In the LDS view, the Father did not form the Son out of Himself, the only pre-existing thing (i.e., God himself), which is Hippolytus's teaching. For Hippolytus, the Father thought (or eternally thinks, if Hippolytus was not an Arian in tendency) the Son into existence. The Logos "sprung" (eternally springs) out of God's mind. I don't see any similarity here with anything Joseph Smith taught. From an LDS point of view, this is an alien view. Which leads me back to the question I first posed. Why is Ash quoting a viewpoint alien to Mormon cosmology?

There's more to address ut it's late for me and I don't want to begin typing it only to shut down the computer and lose everything. Perhaps more tomorrow. For now i'll say that I don't think Mike R. Ash is ignorant of the disagreements of earlyu Christian leaders and LDS theology today. mormon's do not view the Early Christian Fathers and people outside the "Great apostasy" and therefore one is to expect what Mormons consider "flawed theology". But it is amazing how certain doctrines unique to LDS beliefs were taught in early Christianity. Ash includes the pre-mortal life (Origen); salvation for the dead; degrees of glory in the after life; and man being heirs to the Father.

Regarding how amazing it is that "certain doctrines unique to LDS beliefs were taught in early Christianity", if you're speaking of theosis/deification ("man being heirs to the father"), that doctrine is not unique to LDS beliefs. Catholics, Orthodox, and Mormons all believe that the faithful will be deified. Catholics and Orthodox have always believed this. What is unique is the LDS teaching that God, the One we are striving to be like, is an exalted, glorified man. That doctrine is not found in early Christianity outside of the New Testament and within the NT the evidence is ambiguous - that's why coming to agreement only by pointing to scripture verses is unproductive. About pre-mortal life, Origen believed in pre-existent souls, not a pre-earth life where we lived as spirits with Heavenly Father. Origen got his doctrine of pre-existent souls from Plato (in the Timaeus). Are Mormons platonists? I don't think so. I think it's a stretch to say that Origen believed what Mormons believe. About degrees of glory, Ash quotes Irenaeus, who did indeed talk about degrees of glory in heaven. Clement of Alexandria also taught degrees of glory (Stromata Book 6, Ch. 13-14). Ash didn't note this in his article. Irenaeus used the metaphors of "many mansions" and "the couch on which the guests shall recline, having been invited to the wedding" to describe what he meant. It's undeniable that Irenaeus is discussing ranks in heaven, just as couches in ancient wedding feasts (even tables at modern wedding receptions) were supposedly arranged in order of the person's importance, but there's no indication that Irenaeus meant separate kingdoms. One kingdom, one wedding feast, many mansions and wedding couches arranged in order of rank: "those who produce an hundred-fold, and that of those who produce sixty-fold, and that of those who produce thirty-fold". Clement says the same thing in respect to ranks in the church. Clement called the degrees "abodes" and "the grades here in the Church, of bishops, presbyters, deacons, are imitations of the angelic glory, and of that economy which, the Scriptures say, awaits those who, following the footsteps of the apostles, have lived in perfection of righteousness according to the Gospel." Unlike Irenaeus, who was silent on this point, Clement seems to think there will be progression between ranks. Speaking of those who "have lived in perfection of righteousness according to the Gospel", Clement says that "For these taken up in the clouds, the apostle writes, will first minister as deacons, then be classed in the presbyterate, by promotion in glory (for glory differs from glory) till they grow into "a perfect man." Either way, Clement also places all of these ranks within one kingdom - the Kingdom of Heaven. Although both did seem to believe in ranks in heaven, neither Irenaeus nor Clement teach D&C 76. It seems this belief in ranks within the (single) Kingdom never caught on. About baptism for the dead, 1 Cor 15:29 is sufficiently ambiguous that it can be spun multiple ways. Either it was practiced in the early church or Paul was talking about some group outside of the church without approving the practice. The problem is the word "they" in the verse. If Paul had said "then what shall we do when we are baptized for the dead" there would be no issue. Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria both attributed Paul's comment to the practice of heretical gnostic sects, Tertullian identifying the verse with Marcion and his followers and Clement identifying the verse with Theodotus and his followers. As with any gnostic system, the gnostic beliefs within which baptism for the dead was supposedly practiced by these groups is bizarre. Getting back to the point of the OP, given that Clement was a trinitarian church father and thought baptism for the dead was a strange gnostic practice, it's odd that LDS apologists would want to quote him.

Thanks for your reply.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Spammer

[Stone holm]

Tertullian taught God (the father, Son, and Holy Ghost) were corporeal and of a gas substance.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Trinity/Nicene_creed

(Under the section, "What were early Christian beliefs on the nature of God?")

AND...This is just for fun:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/No_man_has_seen_God

Oh migosh someone literally believe in god gas.

[Spammer]

Tertullian taught God (the father, Son, and Holy Ghost) were corporeal and of a gas substance.

Poor Tertullian. He was the first to develop a systematic theology of the Trinity, then he became a Montanist and left orthodoxy behind. Like many, maybe he was having some difficulty distinguishing between conceiving a spiritual substance intellectually and imagining it in his mind. It's easy to confuse concept with image. That's why so many think the Father has long white hair, a flowing beard, and robes.

http://en.fairmormon...ty/Nicene_creed

(Under the section, "What were early Christian beliefs on the nature of God?")

AND...This is just for fun:

http://en.fairmormon...an_has_seen_God

Irenaeus: no man has seen God at any time unless the Son hath declared Him.

Joseph: no man has seen God at any time except he hath born record of the Son.

The former can be interpreted: the Son declares/reveals/makes known the Father. "I and my Father are one". "When you have seen me you have seen the Father". Very orthodox.

The latter: Righteous men have seen God in the past. Not so orthodox.

Too bad the scriptures are so often ambiguous.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Spammer

[Robert F. Smith]

Hmm..I'm unaware of any traditional Christians who believe God is a gas of some kind. I know many who believe he is transcendent, beyond time and space, and immaterial.

Somewhat akin to the 19th century concept of the ether (not the well-known gas). One could also compare the notion to Mason Williams' "Classical Gas," Just what does a jazzman mean when he says something is a "gas"?

Edited May 17, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Stone holm]

Poor Tertullian. He was the first to develop a systematic theology of the Trinity, then he became a Montanist and left orthodoxy behind. Like many, maybe he was having some difficulty distinguishing between conceiving a spiritual substance intellectually and imagining it in his mind. It's easy to confuse concept with image. That's why so many think the Father has long white hair, a flowing beard, and robes.

Irenaeus: no man has seen God at any time unless the Son hath declared Him.

Joseph: no man has seen God at any time except he hath born record of the Son.

The former can be interpreted: the Son declares/reveals/makes known the Father. "I and my Father are one". "When you have seen me you have seen the Father". Very orthodox.

The latter: Righteous men have seen God in the past. Not so orthodox.

Too bad the scriptures are so often ambiguous.

Yeah, and then there was Bruce R McConkie declaring Christ had shorthair.

[Darren10]

Poor Tertullian. He was the first to develop a systematic theology of the Trinity, then he became a Montanist and left orthodoxy behind. Like many, maybe he was having some difficulty distinguishing between conceiving a spiritual substance intellectually and imagining it in his mind. It's easy to confuse concept with image. That's why so many think the Father has long white hair, a flowing beard, and robes.

Was Tertullian Orthodox when he declared that the persons ofthe Godhead were corporeal or no? My understanding is that he was quite active in the Christian Church at that point. Although some particular Tetrullian views of the "trinity" were later rejected by the Christian Church the fundamental concept of of "tirinty" were accepted by the Christian Church. As for Origen, don't forget that Origen did not base his beliefs on Greek philosophy alone but also upon biblical doctrine which does imply a pre-mortal existence lest parts of that holy book makes little to no sense. The LDS accept his biblical doctrine truths ad reject that which is mere philosophy treated as if it were God's word.

@ my previous post , my main reason for speakng of ex nihilo was to show that there was no teaching of it, doctrinally or philosophically, amongst the Christians until after the Apostolic Era ended. Before that it was purely ex materia as accepted and taught. In fact, if you read my "Out of Nothing..." link in my #32 post you'll see that biblically-speaking there is sound doctrine pointing to ex materia and, well, *nothing*, pointing to ex nihilo. As pointed out in the section "Creation as Described in the New Testament", Genesis 1:1-2 states:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters

Here we see that "in the beginning, there was God, darkness, a "deep" and "water". The same article in the same section then connects that scripture passage with 2 Peter 3:5-6 which reads:

They [sarcastic scoffers] deliberately ignore the fact that long ago there were the heavens and the earth, formed out of water and through water by the Word of God, and that it was through these same factors that the world of those days was destroyed by the floodwaters

The Bible is clear in that "in the beginning" God's Word created the heaven and the earth through "water" which existed with God and His Word "in the beginning". There is no doctrine which says God created this "water" back "in the begninning". The closest you'll get is that God created "all things" but that does not negate "create" meaning "form". It's only philosophy which Christians founded their acceptence of ex nihilo. Ex nihilo does not make a god stronger or "more powerful" than a god who creates ex materia. In fact, ex nihilo would make God the creator of all that is evil by creating Lucifer / Satan / the Devil.

Irenaeus: no man has seen God at any time unless the Son hath declared Him.

Joseph: no man has seen God at any time except he hath born record of the Son.

The former can be interpreted: the Son declares/reveals/makes known the Father. "I and my Father are one". "When you have seen me you have seen the Father". Very orthodox.

The latter: Righteous men have seen God in the past. Not so orthodox.

Either way you are saying that Clement of Alexandria, as you represented him citing John that no oner has seen God is not a complete understanding ofthe Bible. Regarding the righteous man seeing God, here are these...

No ^aman hath ^bseen God ^cat any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath ^ddeclared him.

(John 1:18)

Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath ^aseen the Father.

(John 6:46 - bold mine)

Is the Bible not Orthodox or does it simply contradict itself? I say neither. I see John 6:46 simply explaining in more detail John 1:18. In John we read that those "which [are] of God", or, in other words, those who are righteous, are those who have seen God. It has always been understood in Christianity that those "which [are] of God" are those who follow Jesus Christ. It has also always been understood that those who see God the Father can only do so through the Son. This also applies to learning of and from the Father.

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the ^aChrist, the ^bSon of the ^cliving God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon ^aBar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not ^brevealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

(Mathew 16:16-17)

Even here it is understood that it is through the Son which Peter learns from the Father.

Too bad the scriptures are so often ambiguous.

Yup. And without living revelation, it is difficult to retain a more prescise understanding of them. One thing's for sure, any Early Christian Father who says that it is impossible to see God and live is factually incorrect. The Bible does not teach that.

As for Mike Ashes' use of Early Christian Father'sa doctrines does the following. It shows a connectivity from what they taught as per their understanding of key doctrines which stand today as unique to Mormon theology. The pre-mortal existence is one example. As you pointed out, Origen believed in it but not to the extent that the LDS believe in it. I'll add that Christianity today has discarded it completely yet Origen was quite Orthodox for his time when he taught it. In fact, Origen had a pretty sizable following from my understanding. Deification is another example. It exists in the Catholic Church, even explicitly declared in their Catechism, it exists to a further extent in the East Orthodox Church and at the extreme end in the LDS Church. So, by pointing to partistic teachings, Ash shows that there is a connection between what stands today as marking LDS theology as unique but it would be less unique were it to have existed (obviousy without the name "Latter-day") back in the first century CE.

LDS view the Early Christian Fathers as doing an amzing and valiant job at learning, sharing, explaining, and living the gospel of Jesus Christ but at the same time they strived to do so with a sdignificant disadvantage: there was no living revelation to govern the Church, nor was there a proper connection of priesthood authority. No doubt the Christian Fathers will be eternally blessed fo what they did on earth and in fact, according to LDS doctrine, all will have the opportunity to receive the fulness of the gospel which did not exist in their time and due to no fault of their own. Christians today believe in the words of the Early Christian Fathers as do the LDS only the LDS do so under the understanding that these valiant souls labored under and apostasy. But by citing them, the LDS uniqueness becomes more in line with original Christian thought. Ash cites Christian Fathers before the Holy Trinity formulation ocurred and barely post ex materia. By doing so he allows his readers to get a glimps into thsome of the history of Christianity.

You yourself point out similarities today between the Catholic, Orthodox, and LDS Church. So should LDS scholars not point ot either of the two to show compatibility between doctrines? That is what you seem to be saying regarding doctrinal citations of the Early Christian Fathers.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Regarding your comment about Hippolytus and the "LDS doctrine of Jesus Christ being created ("formed") from the Father", the LDS teaching is that the Father "formed" Jesus's spirit out of pre-existent, eternal intelligence, which is co-eternal with the Father but is not ontologically equivalent with the Father himself. In the LDS view, the Father did not form the Son out of Himself, the only pre-existing thing (i.e., God himself), which is Hippolytus's teaching. For Hippolytus, the Father thought (or eternally thinks, if Hippolytus was not an Arian in tendency) the Son into existence. The Logos "sprung" (eternally springs) out of God's mind. I don't see any similarity here with anything Joseph Smith taught. From an LDS point of view, this is an alien view. Which leads me back to the question I first posed. Why is Ash quoting a viewpoint alien to Mormon cosmology?

There most definitely is ontological commonality betwen the Father and the Son. In fact, this is another example which the LDS goes ot the extreme. The LDS rejects God being "species-unique". The LDS believe God is the Father of Jesus Christ and all the human race and that we are all created in His image. He being the Father of us makes us all His children. Not in a sotoriological sense but in te gens sense.

In seeking the Lord, Paul writes:

For in him we ^alive, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his ^boffspring. Forasmuch then as we are the ^aoffspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto ^bgold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s ^cdevice.

(Acts 17:28-29)

Of all God's creations, deification is offered only to humans? Why? Because of all of God's creations, only humans (we can include angels for another time) are God's "offspring" is from the Greek "genos". "Genos" means "kind", "kindred", "family", and even "descendent of". This significantly reduced the metaphysical ontological uniqueness between God and man. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, and mortal man are all ontologically connected as per LDS dcotrine. We are al intelligence. The difference is the greatness and exaltation of the Father as well as the Godhead who are One Eternal God.

http://biblesuite.co.../genos_1085.htm

Edited May 17, 2013 by Darren10

[3DOP]

Yeah, and then there was Bruce R McConkie declaring Christ had shorthair.

With a white shirt and tie?

Its kind of funny. I went to a fundamentalist Bible school in the 70's that was more or less a reaction against the 60's. We had short hair and so did Jesus!

[Spammer]

Was Tertullian Orthodox when he declared that the persons ofthe Godhead were corporeal or no? My understanding is that he was quite active in the Christian Church at that point. Although some particular Tetrullian views of the "trinity" were later rejected by the Christian Church the fundamental concept of of "tirinty" were accepted by the Christian Church. As for Origen, don't forget that Origen did not base his beliefs on Greek philosophy alone but also upon biblical doctrine which does imply a pre-mortal existence lest parts of that holy book makes little to no sense. The LDS accept his biblical doctrine truths ad reject that which is mere philosophy treated as if it were God's word.

Tertullian did write on the Trinity before he left catholic orthdoxy, meaning he was still in communion with the Church when he wrote that God was a corporeal spirit. Opinions about such matters were diverse in the early church, just as there are diverse opinions in the LDS church about whether the Father had a father. Yet they all belong to the same church. Mormons have modern revelation and a living prophet to work through those issues to sort doctrine from opinion. Past prophets have taught things they thought were doctrinal but later turned out to be just their opinion. The same applies to some things the ECFs taught and which were never confirmed, as the ancient church had church councils guided by the Holy Spirit to sort doctrine from opinion. The outcome in either case is the same: the truth is determined and known by fallible humans with God's help.

Regarding Origen, he accepted ex nihilo and the absolute transcendence of God (beyond space and time), so whatever he meant by his blending of Plato's pre-existent souls with Christian scripture must be thought of within that context. There was much speculation about the nature of human souls at the time. Origen accepted Plato's teaching on pre-existent souls. Basilides believed in the transmigration of souls. Other gnostics believed that human souls were the product of numerous emanations from a distant unknowable deity, falling out of these emanations into created matter, which was corrupt and the source of evil. Church fathers read particular verses and sometimes speculated. That's why Tradition is needed, to keep things in perspective and to provide the interpretive framework. That's also why Tradition formed first and the compilation of the Bible came later. Both Tradition and Scripture go together. Quoting prooftexts outside of an authoritative tradition can lead to problems and disagreement. Standard LDS prooftexts for the pre-earth life doctrine (e.g., Jeremiah's statement that God knew him before he was formed in the womb) are also used in traditional Christianity to illustrate God's nature. This kind of interpretation is consistent with the idea of a transcendent immaterial deity residing outside space and time. In this paradigm, every millisecond of history and the movement of every subatomic particle is eternally present before the mind of God. These events "happen" only once for us, then they're in the past. We're stuck in time. They eternally happen for the One who dwells outside of space-time, the "domain" where there is no past or future, just an eternal Present. The entire history of the universe, past, present and future, is all right there on the painter's canvas and God is eternally looking at all of it, taking it all in, in one supreme act of Now. Here's something from C.S. Lewis - "All times are eternally present to God. Is it not at least possible that along some one line of His multi-dimensional eternity He sees you forever in the nursery pulling the wings off a fly...?" Of course God knew Jeremiah before he was formed in the womb. All of Jeremiah's life is eternally present before God and God knew all about Jeremiah before he was born in time. Prooftexts can be spun many ways. It's all just interpretation, based on one's prior conception of the divine and the authority one refers to (either yourself or someone else).

@ my previous post , my main reason for speakng of ex nihilo was to show that there was no teaching of it, doctrinally or philosophically, amongst the Christians until after the Apostolic Era ended. Before that it was purely ex materia as accepted and taught. In fact, if you read my "Out of Nothing..." link in my #32 post you'll see that biblically-speaking there is sound doctrine pointing to ex materia and, well, *nothing*, pointing to ex nihilo. As pointed out in the section "Creation as Described in the New Testament", Genesis 1:1-2 states:

Here we see that "in the beginning, there was God, darkness, a "deep" and "water". The same article in the same section then connects that scripture passage with 2 Peter 3:5-6 which reads:

The Bible is clear in that "in the beginning" God's Word created the heaven and the earth through "water" which existed with God and His Word "in the beginning". There is no doctrine which says God created this "water" back "in the begninning". The closest you'll get is that God created "all things" but that does not negate "create" meaning "form". It's only philosophy which Christians founded their acceptence of ex nihilo. Ex nihilo does not make a god stronger or "more powerful" than a god who creates ex materia. In fact, ex nihilo would make God the creator of all that is evil by creating Lucifer / Satan / the Devil.

Either way you are saying that Clement of Alexandria, as you represented him citing John that no oner has seen God is not a complete understanding ofthe Bible. Regarding the righteous man seeing God, here are these...

(John 1:18)

(John 6:46 - bold mine)

Is the Bible not Orthodox or does it simply contradict itself? I say neither. I see John 6:46 simply explaining in more detail John 1:18. In John we read that those "which [are] of God", or, in other words, those who are righteous, are those who have seen God. It has always been understood in Christianity that those "which [are] of God" are those who follow Jesus Christ. It has also always been understood that those who see God the Father can only do so through the Son. This also applies to learning of and from the Father.

(Mathew 16:16-17)

Even here it is understood that it is through the Son which Peter learns from the Father.

In response to all of this and your question "Is the Bible not Orthodox?", I'll only point out that the ancient orthodox catholic tradition that compiled and gave you the Bible (minus some important books that Luther had a problem with and chose to get rid of) has no problem with anything you've cited and that tradition believes in ex nihilo, that no one has seen the Father, and in creedal trinitarianism. The verses don't shout their meaning at you. It all depends on the interpretive framework you bring to the texts. All of the verses you cite make perfect sense within that ancient tradition, just as they make perfect sense to you within your modern LDS tradition. We're back to the issue of which authority do you trust.

Yup. And without living revelation, it is difficult to retain a more prescise understanding of them. One thing's for sure, any Early Christian Father who says that it is impossible to see God and live is factually incorrect. The Bible does not teach that.

Or, without an ecumenical council guided by the Holy Spirit, it is difficult to retain a more precise understanding of them.

As for Mike Ashes' use of Early Christian Father'sa doctrines does the following. It shows a connectivity from what they taught as per their understanding of key doctrines which stand today as unique to Mormon theology. The pre-mortal existence is one example. As you pointed out, Origen believed in it but not to the extent that the LDS believe in it. I'll add that Christianity today has discarded it completely yet Origen was quite Orthodox for his time when he taught it. In fact, Origen had a pretty sizable following from my understanding. Deification is another example. It exists in the Catholic Church, even explicitly declared in their Catechism, it exists to a further extent in the East Orthodox Church and at the extreme end in the LDS Church. So, by pointing to partistic teachings, Ash shows that there is a connection between what stands today as marking LDS theology as unique but it would be less unique were it to have existed (obviousy without the name "Latter-day") back in the first century CE.

As I said above, Origen's ideas about pre-existent souls were a blending of Plato with Christian scripture. He might have had a large following, but the church councils under the guidance of the Holy Spirit never accepted those ideas as part of authentic Christian teaching. The same applies to Tertullian's corporeal spirit substance idea (assuming Tertullian really mean gaseous matter and wasn't just speaking metaphorically), his later Montanism, and Irenaeus'/Clement's ideas about degrees of glory. Anyone, even ancient church fathers and LDS prophets, can read scripture passes, opine on various matters, and pass opinions off as doctrine. The LDS have a living prophet and we orthodox catholic christians have inspired church councils to help keep all of this straight.

LDS view the Early Christian Fathers as doing an amzing and valiant job at learning, sharing, explaining, and living the gospel of Jesus Christ but at the same time they strived to do so with a sdignificant disadvantage: there was no living revelation to govern the Church, nor was there a proper connection of priesthood authority. No doubt the Christian Fathers will be eternally blessed fo what they did on earth and in fact, according to LDS doctrine, all will have the opportunity to receive the fulness of the gospel which did not exist in their time and due to no fault of their own. Christians today believe in the words of the Early Christian Fathers as do the LDS only the LDS do so under the understanding that these valiant souls labored under and apostasy. But by citing them, the LDS uniqueness becomes more in line with original Christian thought. Ash cites Christian Fathers before the Holy Trinity formulation ocurred and barely post ex materia. By doing so he allows his readers to get a glimps into thsome of the history of Christianity.

"There was no living revelation to govern the Church, nor was there a proper connection of priesthood authority". These are LDS assumptions, part of your paradigm. I accept the ancient church council, apostolic succession paradigm. The church fathers Ash quotes were my church fathers, not his. This makes a lot of difference in how Ash and I approach the church fathers. Shall I quote Brigham Young or Joseph Smith in defense of unique aspects christian orthodoxy? What would Ash and Fair think of such an effort? That's the flip side of the question I raised about deification/theosis in the OP.

To that point, there are a few things you said that I'll respond to. First, you said "Deification is another example. It exists in the Catholic Church, even explicitly declared in their Catechism, it exists to a further extent in the East Orthodox Church and at the extreme end in the LDS Church. So, by pointing to partistic teachings, Ash shows that there is a connection between what stands today as marking LDS theology as unique but it would be less unique were it to have existed (obviousy without the name "Latter-day") back in the first century CE." Let me clarify that in Eastern Orthodoxy deification (theosis) is absolutely central. The Christian life is all about attaining to theosis, the god-like state, through purification (ascesis) and illumination (by the Spirit). The Orthodox believe that we humans can attain to theosis, i.e., be divinized, in this life. These are the Saints and the only true theologians.

Second, when you say "Ash cites Christian Fathers before the Holy Trinity formulation ocurred", the ECFs Ash cites all believed in the foundational elements of creedal trinitarianism, which was later more fully articulated and formalized (not formulated) as an official creedal statement at Nicea. It's a myth that the Holy Trinity formulation was an invention of the council. All the council did was debate, vote, then hammer out the language for an official creedal statement, something that would put to rest the debates about whether the Son was a created being. Athanasius, the most vigorous proponent of the official issued version, wrote a treatise about about the Holy Trinity and the Son's uncreated nature, and defended the traditional view within it, a few decades before the council - which he attended and voted in.

Third, you also said "by citing [the church fathers], the LDS uniqueness becomes more in line with original Christian thought". I'm unclear how citing 180-225 ad writings from church fathers who taught a cosmology alien to LDS thought shows that unique LDS teachings about deification are in line with original, 1st century, Christian thought. I assume that's what you're trying to say here. My point all along is that, not only is the theosis doctrine not unique to the LDS church, the quoted church fathers did not remotely teach the LDS version, so why are they being quoted? What's unique to Mormonism is the unique belief that god is an exalted man residing in space, with a theoretically identifiable (celestialized) spatial location - and that by following Jesus we can become like him. None of the early church fathers taught that, not by a long shot.

You yourself point out similarities today between the Catholic, Orthodox, and LDS Church. So should LDS scholars not point ot either of the two to show compatibility between doctrines? That is what you seem to be saying regarding doctrinal citations of the Early Christian Fathers.

But Ash isn't quoting the ECFs to show compatibility. He's quoting them to show that unique LDS beliefs were also believed by ancient christians. The point is that LDS beliefs and the beliefs of the quoted fathers are utterly incompatible.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Spammer

[3DOP]

@ my previous post , my main reason for speakng of ex nihilo was to show that there was no teaching of it, doctrinally or philosophically, amongst the Christians until after the Apostolic Era ended. Before that it was purely ex materia as accepted and taught. In fact, if you read my "Out of Nothing..." link in my #32 post you'll see that biblically-speaking there is sound doctrine pointing to ex materia and, well, *nothing*, pointing to ex nihilo. As pointed out in the section "Creation as Described in the New Testament", Genesis 1:1-2 states:

Here we see that "in the beginning, there was God, darkness, a "deep" and "water". The same article in the same section then connects that scripture passage with 2 Peter 3:5-6 which reads:

The Bible is clear in that "in the beginning" God's Word created the heaven and the earth through "water" which existed with God and His Word "in the beginning". There is no doctrine which says God created this "water" back "in the begninning". The closest you'll get is that God created "all things" but that does not negate "create" meaning "form". It's only philosophy which Christians founded their acceptence of ex nihilo. Ex nihilo does not make a god stronger or "more powerful" than a god who creates ex materia. In fact, ex nihilo would make God the creator of all that is evil by creating Lucifer / Satan / the Devil.

Hey Darren, you guys occasionally forget about the books the Protestants threw out.

I beseech thee, my son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing, and mankind also...

---2 Maccabees 7:28

There are certainly a lot of ramifications to our outlooks according to whether or not we are contingent beings or have existence independently of God. Although I would argue that a God who creates from nothing is more powerful than a God who cannot create from nothing, that does not seem to me to be the most important point. In my opinion, the worship and obedience that is revealed to be due to God is improper to beings that would exist without God. I would suggest that 2 Macc. 7:28 is only confirmation of what must be true seeing how God does not treat us as though we have existence independent of him. Only my opinion. I know you'll disagree, but think about it a little if you would.

Good exchange between you and Spammer. God bless.

3DOP

Edited May 17, 2013 by 3DOP

[Spammer]

There most definitely is ontological commonality betwen the Father and the Son. In fact, this is another example which the LDS goes ot the extreme. The LDS rejects God being "species-unique". The LDS believe God is the Father of Jesus Christ and all the human race and that we are all created in His image. He being the Father of us makes us all His children. Not in a sotoriological sense but in te gens sense.

In seeking the Lord, Paul writes:

(Acts 17:28-29)

Of all God's creations, deification is offered only to humans? Why? Because of all of God's creations, only humans (we can include angels for another time) are God's "offspring" is from the Greek "genos". "Genos" means "kind", "kindred", "family", and even "descendent of". This significantly reduced the metaphysical ontological uniqueness between God and man. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, and mortal man are all ontologically connected as per LDS dcotrine. We are al intelligence. The difference is the greatness and exaltation of the Father as well as the Godhead who are One Eternal God.

http://biblesuite.co.../genos_1085.htm

Hippolytus does not teach that all of us, including Jesus, are the literal offspring of God, the spirit children of Heavenly Father. Only Jesus is spiritually begotten of the father and he was not begotten as a spirit formed out of an eternally co-existent (with the Father) pool of intelligences. Our spirits and the material of our bodies were created ex nihilo. Hippolytus did not teach LDS doctrine.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Spammer

[3DOP]

We hold that for a greater good, God created good beings with free will, including Satan. This freedom allows potential for exceedingly great consequences for greater good or for ill. But everything begins good. Evil is not something. Evil is not a creation. Evil "occurs" when something good is lacking. God created all things good as we see in Genesis. The most mailciious of creatures is only capable of corrupting and spoiling what was made good by God. Evil is nothing. Evil is even less than nothing. You guys have a hard time with creation out of nothing. That isn't even the end of God's greatness! Out of evil, less than nothing, "all things work together for good". Through the entry of evil into Creation, our Redemption is even greater than without it. God did not create evil, but He is more than glorified by what He makes out of it.

3DOP

Edited May 17, 2013 by 3DOP

[Darren10]

With a white shirt and tie?

[Ahab]

We hold that for a greater good, God created good beings with free will, including Satan. This freedom allows potential for exceedingly great consequences for greater good or for ill. But everything begins good. Evil is not something. Evil is not a creation. Evil "occurs" when something good is lacking. God created all things good as we see in Genesis. The most mailciious of creatures is only capable of corrupting and spoiling what was made good by God. Evil is nothing. Evil is even less than nothing. You guys have a hard time with creation out of nothing. That isn't even the end of God's greatness! Out of evil, less than nothing, "all things work together for good". Through the entry of evil into Creation, our Redemption is even greater than without it. God did not create evil, but He is more than glorified by what He makes out of it.

3DOP

You're onto something, almost. Where you're gettijng off track is by thinking of it as nothing. A new creation is needed:

We hold that for a greater good, God created good beings with free will, including Satan. This freedom allows potential for exceedingly great consequences for greater good or for ill. But everything begins good. Evil is not something. Evil is not a creation. Evil "occurs" when something good is lacking... an abomination created by taking something good out of a thing that would have remained good had the good part not been taken from it. God created all things good as we see in Genesis. The most mailciious of creatures is only capable of corrupting and spoiling what was made good by God. Evil is nothing. Evil is even less than nothing. Evil is a corrupt abomination created by taking something good out of a thing that would have remained good had the good part not been taken from it. You guys have a hard time with creation out of nothing. We don't agree with that idea because we understand that you can't make something from nothing, and that instead it takes something good to make something into a new creation. That isn't even the end of God's greatness! Out of evil, less than nothing, "all things work together for good". All things work together for good to those who love God. Through the entry of evil into Creation, or rather the taking away of something good from God's creation, our Redemption is even greater than without it. God did not create evil, but He is more than glorified by what He makes out of it.

[Stone holm]

Hey Darren, you guys occasionally forget about the books the Protestants threw out. ---2 Maccabees 7:28

There are certainly a lot of ramifications to our outlooks according to whether or not we are contingent beings or have existence independently of God. Although I would argue that a God who creates from nothing is more powerful than a God who cannot create from nothing, that does not seem to me to be the most important point. In my opinion, the worship and obedience that is revealed to be due to God is improper to beings that would exist without God. I would suggest that 2 Macc. 7:28 is only confirmation of what must be true seeing how God does not treat us as though we have existence independent of him. Only my opinion. I know you'll disagree, but think about it a little if you would.

Good exchange between you and Spammer. God bless.

3DOP

This isn't a my god is more powerful than your god debate. We Mormons kicked the original cause can on down the road while Joseph Smith was still alive.

[Ahab]

This isn't a my god is more powerful than your god debate. We Mormons kicked the original cause can on down the road while Joseph Smith was still alive.

The can wasn't kicked into oblivion, though. Anyone who finds it can start kicking it from wherever they are whenever they get to where the can is. You're right, though. It's not about which version of God is more powerful. It's about how he did what he did and still does.

[Darren10]

Tertullian did write on the Trinity before he left catholic orthdoxy, meaning he was still in communion with the Church when he wrote that God was a corporeal spirit.

This just came to mind. Didn't St. Augustine express reluctancy to join the Christian church because of the corporeality doctrines taught about God? That is until he found a compatible sect of Christians who taught He was only a spirit? Forgive the lack of details, I cannot recall them at this moment.

Opinions about such matters were diverse in the early church, just as there are diverse opinions in the LDS church about whether the Father had a father.

Fair enough.

Yet they all belong to the same church. Mormons have modern revelation and a living prophet to work through those issues to sort doctrine from opinion.

Correct.

Past prophets have taught things they thought were doctrinal but later turned out to be just their opinion.

The only thing that comes to mind here was Moses being told by his father-in-law that how he (Moses) was conducting church affairs was not efficient and thus not prudent. Is there any doctrinal teachings you're thinking of? Usually I never hear outside of Mormon thinking that ancient prophets erred in doctrines.

The same applies to some things the ECFs taught and which were never confirmed, as the ancient church had church councils guided by the Holy Spirit to sort doctrine from opinion. The outcome in either case is the same: the truth is determined and known by fallible humans with God's help.

I've absoutely no inherent quarrel with that collective view (it's a miracle that an infallible being can work with fallible beings to begin with) but I would like to nit-pick a little bit. My view, as I'm sure you know, is that revelation ceased after the Apostles died off. However, isn't the reception of the Holy Spirit revelation? Therefore, when the trinitarian formulation began to be penned, are you not saying that it was done by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? If so, how is that not revelation to the Christian Church? If it is than frankly that's one more reason for LDS apologists to point to the Early Christian Fathers.

Regarding Origen, he accepted ex nihilo and the absolute transcendence of God (beyond space and time), so whatever he meant by his blending of Plato's pre-existent souls with Christian scripture must be thought of within that context. There was much speculation about the nature of human souls at the time. Origen accepted Plato's teaching on pre-existent souls. Basilides believed in the transmigration of souls. Other gnostics believed that human souls were the product of numerous emanations from a distant unknowable deity, falling out of these emanations into created matter, which was corrupt and the source of evil. Church fathers read particular verses and sometimes speculated. That's why Tradition is needed, to keep things in perspective and to provide the interpretive framework. That's also why Tradition formed first and the compilation of the Bible came later. Both Tradition and Scripture go together. Quoting prooftexts outside of an authoritative tradition can lead to problems and disagreement. Standard LDS prooftexts for the pre-earth life doctrine (e.g., Jeremiah's statement that God knew him before he was formed in the womb) are also used in traditional Christianity to illustrate God's nature. This kind of interpretation is consistent with the idea of a transcendent immaterial deity residing outside space and time. In this paradigm, every millisecond of history and the movement of every subatomic particle is eternally present before the mind of God. These events "happen" only once for us, then they're in the past. We're stuck in time. They eternally happen for the One who dwells outside of space-time, the "domain" where there is no past or future, just an eternal Present. The entire history of the universe, past, present and future, is all right there on the painter's canvas and God is eternally looking at all of it, taking it all in, in one supreme act of Now. Here's something from C.S. Lewis - "All times are eternally present to God. Is it not at least possible that along some one line of His multi-dimensional eternity He sees you forever in the nursery pulling the wings off a fly...?" Of course God knew Jeremiah before he was formed in the womb. All of Jeremiah's life is eternally present before God and God knew all about Jeremiah before he was born in time. Prooftexts can be spun many ways. It's all just interpretation, based on one's prior conception of the divine and the authority one refers to (either yourself or someone else).

LDS leaders have expressed similar views on God transcending time and frankly, I agree. Transcending space is a bit more complicated with the LDS view of God the Father having a body but, yes, I do believe He does. Now, about Jeremiah (bold mine):

Before I ^aformed thee in the belly I ^bknew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I ^csanctified thee, and I ^dordained thee a prophet unto the ^enations.

First off, whom else did God "sanctify" and "ordain" befor he existed? If you are arguing that God transcended time, in this case, to a future point in time according to man during pre-Jeremiac (sp?) time on earth, and "sanctified" this person and "ordained" the same person than aren't you beginning to enter into Calvanistic thinking? Let's take this further. I know I have not been "sanctified" or "ordained" to my eternal salvation. That's yet to come so why has my sanctification and ordination not yet come? Why would God "sanctify" and "ordain" Jeremiah to be a ruler on earth and not me to eternal salvation or damnation? Unless you're preaching predestination and predetermination, kinda like the Calvanists, your point of view makes little sense to me.

Let's look at a more poignant scripture regarding pre-mortal existence (bold mine).

And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was ^ablind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this ^aman, or his parents, that he was born blind?

(John 9:1-2)

Are you to argue that the Apopstles thought that God saw the future of a man and that he sinned in at some future time in his mortal exitstence and therefore God caused that he would be born blind? If so that's really stretching things, no?

In both instances, it makes much more sense to conclude that there was an understanding that man existed before his mortality. Therefore, God went to an existing being who would be known on earth as Jeremiah and "sanctified" him and "ordained" him ot be a ruler during mortality. In the case of the blindman, the Apostles thought that he may have sinned before his mortal life the he *may be born* blind. Jospeh Smith's teachings o the pre-mortal existence cause these two passages to make much more sense than God transcending time and all the implications and applications of that. There is no doctrine I am aware of that declares God ordaining or condemning anyone when that person did not exist or could not possibly do anything right or wrong. Also, compare Jeremaih with the LDS scripture of Abraham (bold mine):

And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

(Abraham 3:23)

Very compatible.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Darren10