Lds Apologetics And The Early Church Fathers

[Darren10]

As for tradition, I will agree that it is important. However what's more important to me is revelation from God and authority to declare the word of God on behalf of the Church. My understanding is that the Bishop of Rome was not present at the Nicene Council. He sent two representatives but they frankly had little to nothing to say or add to the debate. And if the counsel was not controlled by Constitine than was it the bishops who burned Arius' writings? Was that done by the guidance of the Holy Spirit? If it was the Holy Sprit than fine, burn the books but I just doubt it was. I view the Council at Nicae as more political than spiritual.

The church fathers Ash quotes were my church fathers, not his.

In some sense you're right. In other sense, you're wrong. The Early Christian Fathers are historically as close to the Early Church Jesus set up as taught I the New Testament as we can get. It is interesting how they viewed pre-creedal gospel teachings. To no surprise, things which were taught and at times very widely accepted, were later condemend by the Christian Church and yet are compatible, at least ot some degree, with doctrines that make LDS theology unique in all Christiandom.

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.

Sure, if you want to. I'll be interested in what you have to say.

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.

Sounds good. In case you missed it, this is a very good interview: http://www.fairblog....log (FAIR Blog)

It's a myth that the Holy Trinity formulation was an invention of the council.

I know this is a tangent to the central argument of this thread but as shown, things like ex nihilo being uniformily accepted since biblical times is doubtful.

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.

The LDS too believe Jesus is eternal. Just that He was created (formed) by the Father and thus the Father is supreme. The LDS also believe that Jesus is and always has been one with the Father. I think many peple are a bit surprised to learn that similar things have been taught and widely accepted within the Early Christian church. In fact, when Christians today think of God, I get the distinct impression that they think of trinitarian creeds; not biblical doctrines. That's another area which the LDS rejects as an orthopraxy.

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.

Because not all of it was so alien to LDS thinknig today. But they are alien to mainstream Christians (as opposed to the Christian churches) today.

the quoted church fathers did not remotely teach the LDS version, so why are they being quoted?

"becoming God" and / or "god-like" is *very* similar to LDS theology.

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.

Correct, except I don't know about the "time" thing.

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.

Ummm, aren't you now saying that Ash did what you say he didn't do? While LDS beliefs today in their entirety are not compatible to the teachings of the Early Christian Father's teachings in their entirety, there are smilarities.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Darren10

[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.

I agree Stone holm. That's why I said about whether it is harder to create out of something or nothing..."that does not seem to me to be the most important point".

Edited May 17, 2013 by 3DOP

[Darren10]

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

Hello, Sir;

From my #32 post from the "Out of Nothing..." lnk we read:

Note also that Romans 4:17 uses the negative μή, which refers to merely relative nonbeing and not to absolute nothing, as required by the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. At this point it is important to understand a bit about the ancient concept of matter in the Greek-speaking world and the distinction between relative nonbeing (Greek μὴ ὄντa) and absolute nothing (Greek οὐκ ὄντως). Platonic philosophy—both Neoplatonism and Middle Platonism—posited the existence of an eternal substratum that was material but was nevertheless so removed from the One Ground of Being that it was often said to not have "real" existence. As Jonathan Goldstein observes: "Platonists called pre-existent matter 'the non-existent.'"[19] This relative nonexistence is indicated by the Greek negative μή, meaning "not" or "non-," in conjunction with the word for existence or being.20] When the early Christian theologians speak of creation that denies that there was any material state prior to creation, however, they use the Greek negation ουκ, meaning "not in any way or mode." As Henry Chadwick explained the usage in Clement's Stromata: "In each case the phrase he employs is ek me ontos not ex ouk ontos; that is to say, it is made not from that which is absolutely non-existent, but from relative non-being or unformed matter, so shadowy and vague that it cannot be said to have the status of 'being', which is imparted to it by the shaping hand of the Creator."[21] Edwin Hatch explained that, for Platonists, "God was regarded as being outside the world. The world was in its origin only potential being (το μὴ ὄν)."[22] He explains more fully:

The [Platonic] dualistic hypothesis assumed a co-existence of matter and God. The assumption was more frequently tacit than explicit. . . . There was a universal belief that beneath the qualities of all existing things lay a substratum or substance on which they were grafted, and which gave to each thing its unity. But the conception of the nature of this substance varied from that of gross and tangible material to that of empty and formless space. . . . It was sometimes conceived as a vast shapeless but plastic mass, to which the Creator gave form, partly by moulding it as a potter moulds clay, partly by combining various elements as a builder combines his materials in the construction of a house.

[23]

I'm now curious as tothe gramaticla structure of 2 Maccabees. Does it obligate the reader / believe that there was an absolute nothing when God created things. I looked up 2 maccabees and found this from cphapter 7, verse 28:

I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. Thus also mankind comes into being.

My imediate reaction is that seems to be a modern-day translation based upon modern-day lingo. Also, does this not stand in direct contrast to Genesis 1:1-2 and 2 Peter 3:5-6. There existing with God was "water" and God used the water to create the earth? Interesting indeed.

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'd actually agree. The LDS view is that witout God, we would not be 1) as we are today and 2) denied to become like Him. So even according to the LDS view, rendering praise and glory is justly due to God.

Good exchange between you and Spammer. God bless.

Good to hear from you, my brother.

http://quod.lib.umic...V1&byte=4353562

Edited May 17, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Hippolytus does not teach that all of us, including Jesus, are the literal offspring of God, the spirit children of Heavenly Father

Correct, St. Paul did. Hippolytus must have dozed off during seminary. (I can relate).

[Darren10]

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

I very much agree that evil ocurrs when there is a lack of good.

God created all things good as we see in Genesis.

That would be *after* Lucifer fell from heaven, no?

The LDS would agree with you that evil is ultimately for our good. But God did not create evil as what would be obligated under creatio ex nihilo. If Satan was an absolute nothing and then God created him than God created evil since Satan was an evil being. Under creatio ex materia there would be materia which was evil and God formed it to what it was intended to be: Satan. He did so, and there is where you and I would agree, to allow evil to exist so that all His creations of the human race would be able to make a choice.

[Ahab]

If Satan was an absolute nothing and then God created him than God created evil since Satan was an evil being.

No, you don't seem to get it. God gave him the choice to do his will or not, and Satan chose not tot, which is what made him evil.

And he still chooses not to, which is why he is still evil.

If someday later he choses to do God's will, though, repenting from all of his sins and doing the will of God instead, then what?

The person we refer to as Satan would then be a good person and someone else would be the person we refer to as Satan.

Nothing comes from nothing. To get something you have to add something.

[3DOP]

Hello, Sir;

From my #32 post from the "Out of Nothing..." lnk we read:

I'm now curious as tothe gramaticla structure of 2 Maccabees. Does it obligate the reader / believe that there was an absolute nothing when God created things. I looked up 2 maccabees and found this from cphapter 7, verse 28:

My imediate reaction is that seems to be a modern-day translation based upon modern-day lingo. Also, does this not stand in direct contrast to Genesis 1:1-2 and 2 Peter 3:5-6. There existing with God was "water" and God used the water to create the earth? Interesting indeed.

I'd actually agree. The LDS view is that witout God, we would not be 1) as we are today and 2) denied to become like Him. So even according to the LDS view, rendering praise and glory is justly due to God.

Good to hear from you, my brother.

http://quod.lib.umic...V1&byte=4353562

Hey Darren...thanks.

I almost said something along the lines of how I don't deny creatio ex materia. It seems clear to me that according to Genesis, (which almost everybody else denies for convenience sake these days anyway, go figure) the creation of matter, according to my lights, precedes what might be called the organization of matter. I agree that matter already existed at the point at which the Genesis narrative takes up. I don't think the Scriptures explicitly address the question of where the matter originally comes from except perhaps 2 Macc. I would answer your proposal about any direct contrast that I don't think it is correct to assume that creatio ex materia of our universe is incompatible with creatio ex nihilo of the matter used to make the universe. The universe is clearly made out of pre-existing matter. If the Scriptures we all agreed on as authoritative were clearer we wouldn't disagree about where the matter came from!

As a Catholic, you can probably see why I am satisfied with 2 Macc as confirming my predisposition toward ex nihilo for matter. I see that even if it is certainly saying ex nihilo for matter, a Mormons doesn't consider it Scripture anyway.

[Darren10]

No, you don't seem to get it. God gave him the choice to do his will or not, and Satan chose not tot, which is what made him evil.

And he still chooses not to, which is why he is still evil.

If someday later he choses to do God's will, though, repenting from all of his sins and doing the will of God instead, then what?

The person we refer to as Satan would then be a good person and someone else would be the person we refer to as Satan.

Nothing comes from nothing. To get something you have to add something.

That's debatable. Since there is no specific doctrine to which I am aware, than I'm fine with your interpretation of the origins of evil. There is trth to what you said. No doubt satan hada choice and chose evil. Wtith that agreement made, I find your inquiry bizzar:

If someday later he choses to do God's will, though, repenting from all of his sins and doing the will of God instead, then what?

Huh? Satan is way beyond the point of redemption from anything. I do not find God's eternal condemnation of Satan to be just unless Satan was eternally and absolutely evil. From the Doctrine and Covenants we read (bold mine):

25 And this we saw also, and bear record, that an ^aangel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who ^brebelled against the Only Begotten ^cSon whom the Father ^dloved and who was in the bosom of the Father, was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son,

26 And was called ^aPerdition, for the heavens ^bwept over him—he was ^cLucifer, a son of the morning.

27 And we beheld, and lo, he is ^afallen! is fallen, even a son of the morning!

28 And while we were yet in the Spirit, the Lord commanded us that we should write the vision; for we beheld Satan, that old ^aserpent, even the ^bdevil, who rebelled against God, and sought to take the kingdom of our ^cGod and his Christ—

29 Wherefore, he maketh ^awar with the saints of God, and encompasseth them round about.

30 And we saw a vision of the ^asufferings of those with whom he made war and overcame, for thus came the voice of the Lord unto us:

31 Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and ^asuffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power—

32 They are they who are the ^asons of ^bperdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born;

33 For they are ^avessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity;

34 Concerning whom I have said there is ^ano ^bforgiveness in this world nor in the world to come—

35 Having ^adenied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having ^bcrucified him unto themselves and put him to an open ^cshame.

(D&C 76)

[Ahab]

That's debatable.

Everything is debatable. I have no problem with debating an issue.

Since there is no specific doctrine to which I am aware, than I'm fine with your interpretation of the origins of evil. There is truth to what you said. No doubt satan hada choice and chose evil. With that agreement made, I find your inquiry bizzar:

Huh? Satan is way beyond the point of redemption from anything. I do not find God's eternal condemnation of Satan to be just unless Satan was eternally and absolutely evil. From the Doctrine and Covenants we read (bold mine):

(D&C 76)

He is in the condition he is in now because of the choices he made. Agreed? If he somehow ever did get to the point where he changed his behavior and no longer rebelled against God, what would that mean then? Do you still think he would be evil if he no longer rebelled against God and no longer rejected the person our Father chose as our Savior and was willing to do all that our Father said he should do? Not in my book. I believe our Father would forgive him, and our Savior would too, if he someone got to that point in his life, even though Satan might still go on throughout all of eternity without ever having a glorified physical body like that of our Father and our Savior.

[Darren10]

I almost said something along the lines of how I don't deny creatio ex materia.

So, tell me, were you sweating it. Shock and awe?

(which almost everybody else denies for convenience sake these days anyway, go figure)

LoL - Ain't that the truth.

I don't think the Scriptures explicitly address the question of where the matter originally comes from except perhaps 2 Macc.

I agree not explicitly stated but the fact of the matter is that doctrinally-speaking we know materia existed with God whem the creation began. To go from there to ex nihilo is, it seems, taking philosophy and assuming it superceeds doctrine. Frankly, I don't think Christians should do that.

I would answer your proposal about any direct contrast that I don't think it is correct to assume that creatio ex materia of our universe is incompatible with creatio ex nihilo of the matter used to make the universe. The universe is clearly made out of pre-existing matter. If the Scriptures we all agreed on as authoritative were clearer we wouldn't disagree about where the matter came from!

I agree.

As a Catholic, you can probably see why I am satisfied with 2 Macc as confirming my predisposition toward ex nihilo for matter. I see that even if it is certainly saying ex nihilo for matter, a Mormons doesn't consider it Scripture anyway.

I can see that but 2 Macabees 7:28 does say that God created *the earth* out of nothing. That "God did not make [it] out of things that existed" whereas Genesis does say that the earth was made by God using "water" which I think would best be interpreted as chaotic matter as water has no definite form until dictated by an external force. And, again, to say that the "water" was created out of nothing seems to be pruely philosophical; not doctrinal. To me, for Christians, doctrine should found philosophy, not the other way around.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

He is in the condition he is in now because of the choices he made. Agreed?

Absolutely.

If he somehow ever did get to the point where he changed his behavior and no longer rebelled against God, what would that mean then?

I'll answer on hypothetical grounds as reality seems abundantly clear that Satan will never repent of anything, nor will he find redemption from God in anything. That said, hes, if he were to repent, he would be restored to a state of non rebellion before God. That would measn he can progress to be god-like. (Dude, I have to emphasize how creepy I feel saying this so I reiterate the qualifier for this response).

Do you still think he would be evil if he no longer rebelled against God and no longer rejected the person our Father chose as our Savior and was willing to do all that our Father said he should do? Not in my book. I believe our Father would forgive him, and our Savior would too, if he someone got to that point in his life, even though Satan might still go on throughout all of eternity without ever having a glorified physical body like that of our Father and our Savior.

Under the hypothetical, yes, he'd be forgiven but even without a body he cannot receive full redemption.

And the ^aresurrection from the dead is the redemption of the soul.

D&C 88:16. That alone means he's eternally damned. And "to hell with him" (LoL!!!)

Edited to add: Let's add a couple verse to D&C 88:

14 Now, verily I say unto you, that through the ^aredemption which is made for you is brought to pass the resurrection from the dead.

15 And the ^aspirit and the ^bbody are the ^csoul of man.

16 And the ^aresurrection from the dead is the redemption of the soul.

I find that even better than citing verse 16 alone.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Darren10

[3DOP]

I very much agree that evil ocurrs when there is a lack of good.

That would be *after* Lucifer fell from heaven, no?

The LDS would agree with you that evil is ultimately for our good. But God did not create evil as what would be obligated under creatio ex nihilo. If Satan was an absolute nothing and then God created him than God created evil since Satan was an evil being. Under creatio ex materia there would be materia which was evil and God formed it to what it was intended to be: Satan. He did so, and there is where you and I would agree, to allow evil to exist so that all His creations of the human race would be able to make a choice.

No...not after in our thought....Satan was made good. All matter is good. All creation, everything that exists is, must be, good. Free will made possible and even necessary perhaps, either the multiplication or corruption of good. We call the corruption evil, but God didn't make it. It isn't a creation. God permits beings of free will to be the authors of evil.

I know that a lot of LDS think that makes God to blame. Okay. I see the reasoning. It makes sense. But I am doubtful that any of us are competent to judge such a question. I have no confidence that in faith I can say that God has to be unable to get rid of evil, is stuck with evil, because otherwise He would be bad. Just think if there is something that we haven't thought of that exonerates God for allowing all the bad to happen, even if He could get rid of it. I don't know all the answers. But I believe Him. I believe He is good and made matter out of nothing. If you are right, I trust it won't make Him mad. I mean, what good father gets upset when his kid thinks he can do things that he really can't?

I trust I speak for both sides of the question. Nobody wants to make God the author of evil. But we sure don't want to underestimate what He can do either.

3DOP

[Darren10]

No...not after in our thought....Satan was made good.

I agree Satan was made "good". In fact, as per the the Book of Abraham, it would be imcompatible for Satan to even have a voice in God's plan of Salvation if he were only evil. My view is that God saw the intelligences which would be Satan and knew of Satan's ultimate rebellion but, of course, made Satan and gave him and all of His other children / angels the freedom to choose. In this sense if ex nihilo is correct than God ultimately created an evil being out of nothing. Unless, of course, you are saying that God created a good being, Lucifer, who then chose evil. I think there's some room there to conclude that God therefore did not create evil.

I trust I speak for both sides of the question. Nobody wants to make God the author of evil. But we sure don't want to underestimate what He can do either

Agreed.

[Spammer]

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.

If true, I'm unfamiliar with that part of Augustine's life. Remember, though, Tertullian believed God was only a spirit. A corporeal spirit. Any beliefs in God's corporeality Augustine might have encountered, if the story is true, would likely have taken this form. Such beliefs in God's corporeality/materiality at the time would have been in the minority and viewed by most as heretical. Augustine was born 29 years after Nicea. He was 26 when Emperor Theodosius I made creedal Trinitarian Christianity the official state religion of the Empire and banned paganism. He was converted to Christianity and baptized 7 years later. The "compatible sect of Christians" Augustine encountered and joined was thus the orthodox Christian Church itself.

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.

Sorry, I was unclear. I was referring to LDS prophets who erred in doctrine.

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.

Yes, reception of the Holy Spirit is revelation. However, the traditional orthodox view of deification of Irenaeus, Clement, and Hippolytus and the LDS view are incompatible. Both claim to be the result of revelation. One view is wrong. LDS apologists can legitimately quote the ECFs only if the quoted ECFs shared the LDS view.

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):

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).

(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):

(Abraham 3:23)

Very compatible.

Again, all of these interpretations of biblical prooftexts are made within a particular paradigm. The paradigm is what's at issue in the various interpretations, the traditional orthodox view or the LDS view of the restored gospel. Interpretations vary based on the paradigm and any verse can be interpreted to fit the paradigm. Which authority/tradition has the best claim to be the original? Where does the weight of the evidence lie? That's the key. Debating verse meanings is unproductive since the validity of a paradigm does not rely on scripture interpretations alone. Either way, it still begs the question of why Ash is applying and overlaying the LDS paradigm onto ECFs who wrote from within the catholic orthodox paradigm.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Spammer

[Spammer]

As for tradition, I will agree that it is important. However what's more important to me is revelation from God and authority to declare the word of God on behalf of the Church. My understanding is that the Bishop of Rome was not present at the Nicene Council. He sent two representatives but they frankly had little to nothing to say or add to the debate. And if the counsel was not controlled by Constitine than was it the bishops who burned Arius' writings? Was that done by the guidance of the Holy Spirit? If it was the Holy Sprit than fine, burn the books but I just doubt it was. I view the Council at Nicae as more political than spiritual.

There were five delegates from the Latin provinces in attendance, including the papal representatives. The council was dominated by Eastern bishops since the controversy was centered in that part of the Church. The Arian innovation never took root in Rome, as it did in some Eastern congregations. Rome was already on the side of the majority view that prevailed. Once the council decided the issue, Constantine acted to enforce the decision using some of the usual means of Roman emperors to enforce the peace. The book burning and exiling of the few bishops who refused to sign on to the decision of the council were ordered by the emperor.

In some sense you're right. In other sense, you're wrong. The Early Christian Fathers are historically as close to the Early Church Jesus set up as taught I the New Testament as we can get. It is interesting how they viewed pre-creedal gospel teachings. To no surprise, things which were taught and at times very widely accepted, were later condemend by the Christian Church and yet are compatible, at least ot some degree, with doctrines that make LDS theology unique in all Christiandom.

Yes, the ECFs are as close as we can get to the New Testament. That is why their writings are of such interest. Of course there are similarities between LDS teaching and the ECFs, just as there are similarities between the LDS and Catholic churches today. All came from the same root. The issue at hand is whose teachings are closer to the ECFs doctrinally and theologically. The fact is, the only similarity between what the ECFs wrote and what the LDS church teaches about deification is the use of certain words. The content is what counts and the difference is radical.

I know this is a tangent to the central argument of this thread but as shown, things like ex nihilo being uniformily accepted since biblical times is doubtful.

Yes, as the church grew and spread throughout the Empire, a diversity of opinions over certain matters began to develop. Kind of like the Mormon movement, which similarly split into various factions centered on particular doctrines or practices. Such is the nature of human organizations. Yet, a seed of truth is still preserved, right?

The LDS too believe Jesus is eternal. Just that He was created (formed) by the Father and thus the Father is supreme. The LDS also believe that Jesus is and always has been one with the Father. I think many peple are a bit surprised to learn that similar things have been taught and widely accepted within the Early Christian church. In fact, when Christians today think of God, I get the distinct impression that they think of trinitarian creeds; not biblical doctrines. That's another area which the LDS rejects as an orthopraxy.

Again, these are examples of similar terms employed with radically different meanings. The similarity is on the surface only. What the LDS mean by "eternal" and "one" is radically different from what the ECFs and trinitarian Christians mean by these terms.

Because not all of it was so alien to LDS thinknig today. But they are alien to mainstream Christians (as opposed to the Christian churches) today.

The ineffable, transcendent, genderless, God of the ECFs is alien to the embodied, exalted male God of the LDS church. The ECF's god is the God of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The only thing the ECFs and the LDS church have in common is the use of some of the same words: god, eternal, Jesus, become, heaven, salvation, etc. etc. I agree that some mainstream, rank and file Christians might believe in a god closer to the LDS view. If such folks belong to any of the ancient churches or mainstream Protestant sects, that only means that don't know what their own churches actually teach.

"becoming God" and / or "god-like" is *very* similar to LDS theology.

The similarity is only on the surface. Dig down a few millimeters and the differences become stark.

Ummm, aren't you now saying that Ash did what you say he didn't do? While LDS beliefs today in their entirety are not compatible to the teachings of the Early Christian Father's teachings in their entirety, there are smilarities.

No. He's quoting them to "show that unique LDS beliefs were also believed by [1st century] christians." I was unclear when I had the word 'ancient' within the brackets.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Spammer

[3DOP]

Hi Spammer.

I have enjoyed your contributions here. Thank you for starting the thread and clarifying the true beliefs of the Fathers. They were nowhere close to being Mormons. Still, many thoughtful Mormons find it affirming to their faith that the early church used language, that if applied to their paradigm, would be compatible with unique doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It can be perplexing when we traditional Christians are certain that the original author did not have the LDS view in mind. But many or most LDS do not necessarily share that negative certainty.

More importantly, the Latter-day Saint who is familiar enough with patristics to understand your objection, will view the Church Fathers differently than us. Those we call our fathers would for them be more accurately designated as "Church Orphans", confusedly making their way without the Holy Ghost guidance of a true church. From your contributions here alone, which have been convincing, I do not see how they can fail to note that even before Nicea, the Fathers they cite for deification, are much closer to the Nicene Trinity than to the King Follet Discourse. However, I think you are failing to appreciate that according with the way they view our "Fathers", the fathers/orphans are, even with their corrupted view of God, preserving some traces of the apostolic teachings of the "Former-day Church". To them, these are significant finds.

I regret that I cannot agree at this time that beginning from their perspective, it is a misuse of "our Fathers", if they study them and use their words in a way that makes sense if there had been an Apostasy and Restoration. This is not to say I am moved one inch away from my firm belief in the Holy Catholic Church and the creeds of the Fathers which She maintains. I think you are Orthodox? When you and I look at it, we are wondering how in the world this establishes an apostasy? We are agreed it does not; it cannot do so. But presupposing this unproven apostasy, I can see why Mr. Ash and his readers, even if agreeing with your analysis, would find his snapshots of history to be compelling.

Regards,

3DOP

Edited May 18, 2013 by 3DOP

[Spammer]

Hi Spammer.

I have enjoyed your contributions here. Thank you for starting the thread and clarifying the true beliefs of the Fathers. They were nowhere close to being Mormons. Still, many thoughtful Mormons find it affirming to their faith that the early church used language, that if applied to their paradigm, would be compatible with unique doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It can be perplexing when we traditional Christians are certain that the original author did not have the LDS view in mind. But many or most LDS do not necessarily share that negative certainty.

More importantly, the Latter-day Saint who is familiar enough with patristics to understand your objection, will view the Church Fathers differently than us. Those we call our fathers would for them be more accurately designated as "Church Orphans", confusedly making their way without the Holy Ghost guidance of a true church. From your contributions here alone, which have been convincing, I do not see how they can fail to note that even before Nicea, the Fathers they cite for deification, are much closer to the Nicene Trinity than to the King Follet Discourse. However, I think you are failing to appreciate that according with the way they view our "Fathers", the fathers/orphans are, even with their corrupted view of God, preserving some traces of the apostolic teachings of the "Former-day Church". To them, these are significant finds.

I regret that I cannot agree at this time that beginning from their perspective, it is a misuse of "our Fathers", if they study them and use their words in a way that makes sense if there had been an Apostasy and Restoration. This is not to say I am moved one inch away from my firm belief in the Holy Catholic Church and the creeds of the Fathers which She maintains. I think you are Orthodox? When you and I look at it, we are wondering how in the world this establishes an apostasy? We are agreed it does not; it cannot do so. But presupposing this unproven apostasy, I can see why Mr. Ash and his readers, even if agreeing with your analysis, would find his snapshots of history to be compelling.

Regards,

3DOP

Hi 3DOP,

I do understand where you're coming from and I agree with your position except 1) where the LDS church member knowingly portrays the ECFs as if they believed what Mormons believe when they didn't, creating a false impression; and 2) in relation to the "heirs to the Father" promise, deification, theosis, etc. My comments in this thread were prompted by the Ensign article in question and should be viewed in that light. I'm not referring to LDS church members, but to apologists who IMO should know better. Regarding 1), for certain unique LDS doctrines, I agree that an apologist can presuppose the Apostasy, point to the quoted ECFs, and reasonably say that "Many teachings and practices that distinguish Latter-day Saints from other modern Christians are now known to have been believed and practiced by the early Christians as well." It's true - LDS beliefs in human deification, a pre-mortal life, baptism for the dead, and degrees of glory can find some surface-level support in the ECFs once the Apostasy's occurrence is assumed. But I do think the sources are being misused if the apologist portrays an ECF as if he believed just what Mormons believed, and knows full well what the quoted ECF actually believed about the nature of God, origin of matter, etc. I used to find such apologetic arguments compelling when I was LDS - until I actually read the ancient books in question and found out how thoroughly Catholic they are, which really freaked me out. It's the possibility of knowing misrepresentation that's bothering me.

That said, even assuming Ash has not read all of the ECFs writings and is unaware of what the ECFs really believed (which could actually be the case), Ash still can't legitimately make the same kind of argument for the doctrine of deification/theosis as he does for the other doctrines, even if the Apostasy is assumed. That's why I began this thread with a focus on that doctrine. The reason is that the Apostasy argument assumes that certain teachings were lost and restored by Joseph Smith. Ash lumps deification into the category of restored "teachings and practices that distinguish Latter-day Saints from other modern Christians". Deification doesn't belong with the other teachings he mentioned, as the doctrine is not unique to Mormonism. Not only can Ash find no true support for the LDS version of deification in the quoted ECFs, even if the Apostasy is assumed, the fact that deification has always been a belief of the Catholic and Orthodox churches and still is to this day only shows that the doctrine was never lost. LDS apologists are understandably excited by the fact that Clement and Irenaeus talk about degrees of glory. As far as I know, no modern Christians except Mormons believe in this doctrine. They have no good reason to be excited by ancient mention of deification and statements such as "God became man so that man could become god" since that teaching as Ash describes it does not "distinguish Latter-day Saints from [the vast majority of] other modern Christians". Yet, in his article Ash assumes that it does. He argues as if the ECFs believed what Mormons believe and he argues as if only Mormons teach deification. This is very misleading in relation to theosis. If Ash had quoted Clement, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus, duly noted that Catholics and Orthodox Christians also believe in deification/theosis, then stated something along the lines of "even though these church Fathers believed in deification, they do not share our unique beliefs about the nature of God, beliefs that Joseph Smith restored," then there wouldn't be an issue with his discussion of ancient theosis doctrines. The problem is, making such a statement would immediately beg the question: if the quoted ECFs talked about truly unique LDS teachings like baptism for the dead, degrees of glory, and the pre-mortal life, which ECFs talked about unique LDS teachings about the nature of God? The answer is none. Instead, Ash implies that no Christians except Mormons believes in deification today and skips over the fact that deification is not a unique LDS teaching. Even assuming the Apostasy, this is a problem as it seriously complicates the claim that the doctrine of deification needed to be restored.

Bringing all of this back to your point, i.e., "many thoughtful Mormons find it affirming to their faith that the early church used language, that if applied to their paradigm, would be compatible with unique doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", I wonder how affirming it would be if they really knew how thoroughly un-mormon the ECFs were? I definitely think a bit more disclosure on this point is called for, even within the pages of a devotional magazine like the Ensign. Ash's article is footnoted as if it's a scholarly piece, when it's really an apologetic. It's affirming only because the typical church member has no idea what the ECFs really believed. Ash's approach does nothing to qualify the statements of the quoted ECFs by noting that they contain echoes of lost doctrines. I realize this is what most here think Ash is doing, but the fact is he says nothing about such echoes in his piece. The result is that it tends to confirm certain false impressions about supposed close similarities between ECF and LDS beliefs. I know those false impressions are being confirmed by this article, as I have certain LDS family members who were very excited about Ash's article when it came out.

Oh, and yes, I'm Eastern Orthodox. In fact, I'm off to Great Vespers. Thanks for your reply. Cheers!

Edited May 19, 2013 by Spammer

[Stone holm]

Absolutely.

I'll answer on hypothetical grounds as reality seems abundantly clear that Satan will never repent of anything, nor will he find redemption from God in anything. That said, hes, if he were to repent, he would be restored to a state of non rebellion before God. That would measn he can progress to be god-like. (Dude, I have to emphasize how creepy I feel saying this so I reiterate the qualifier for this response).

Under the hypothetical, yes, he'd be forgiven but even without a body he cannot receive full redemption.

D&C 88:16. That alone means he's eternally damned. And "to hell with him" (LoL!!!)

Edited to add: Let's add a couple verse to D&C 88:

I find that even better than citing verse 16 alone.

I thought our doctrine was that although he will never receive a body he will eventually be forgiven and that Eternal does not mean never ending, but rather just means God's.

[3DOP]

Hi 3DOP,

I do understand where you're coming from and I agree with your position except 1) where the LDS church member knowingly portrays the ECFs as if they believed what Mormons believe when they didn't and says nothing about it, creating a false impression; and 2) in relation to the "heirs to the Father" promise, deification, theosis, etc. Regarding 1), for certain unique LDS doctrines, an apologist can presuppose the Apostasy, point to the quoted ECFs, and reasonably say that "Many teachings and practices that distinguish Latter-day Saints from other modern Christians are now known to have been believed and practiced by the early Christians as well." LDS beliefs in human deification, a pre-mortal life, baptism for the dead, and degrees of glory can find some support in the ECFs once the Apostasy's occurrence is assumed. But I do think the sources are being misused if the apologist portrays an ECF as if he believed just what Mormons believed, and knows full well what the quoted ECF actually believed about the nature of God, origin of matter, etc. I used to find such arguments compelling when I was LDS - until I actually read the ancient books in question and found out how thoroughly Catholic they are, which really freaked me out. It's the possibility of knowing misrepresentation that's bothering me.

That said, even assuming Ash has not read all of the ECFs writings and is unaware of what the ECFs really believed (which could actually be the case), Ash still can't legitimately make the same kind of argument for the doctrine of deification/theosis as he does for the other doctrines, even if the Apostasy is assumed. That's why I began this thread with a focus on that doctrine. The reason is that the Apostasy argument assumes that certain teachings were lost and restored by Joseph Smith. Ash lumps deification into the category of restored "teachings and practices that distinguish Latter-day Saints from other modern Christians". Deification doesn't belong with the other teachings he mentioned, as the doctrine is not unique to Mormonism. Not only can Ash find no true support for the LDS version of deification in the quoted ECFs, even if the Apostasy is assumed, the fact that deification has always been a belief of the Catholic and Orthodox churches and still is to this day only shows that the doctrine was never lost. LDS apologists are understandably excited by the fact that Clement and Irenaeus talk about degrees of glory. As far as I know, no modern Christians except Mormons believe in this doctrine. They have no good reason to be excited by ancient mention of deification and statements such as "God became man so that man could become god" since that teaching as Ash describes it does not "distinguish Latter-day Saints from [the vast majority of] other modern Christians". Yet, in his article Ash assumes that it does. He argues as if the ECFs believed what Mormons believe and he argues as if only Mormons teach deification. This is very misleading in relation to theosis. If Ash had quoted Clement, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus, duly noted that Catholics and Orthodox Christians also believe in deification/theosis, then stated something along the lines of "even though these church Fathers believed in deification, they do not share our unique beliefs about the nature of God, beliefs that Joseph Smith restored," then there wouldn't be an issue with his discussion of ancient theosis doctrines. The problem is, making such a statement would immediately beg the question: if the quoted ECFs talked about truly unique LDS teachings like baptism for the dead, degrees of glory, and the pre-mortal life, which ECFs talked about unique LDS teachings about the nature of God? The answer is none. Instead, Ash implies that no Christians except Mormons believes in deification today and skips over the fact that deification is not a unique LDS teaching. Even assuming the Apostasy, this is a problem as it seriously complicates the claim that the doctrine of deification needed to be restored.

Bringing all of this back to your point, i.e., "many thoughtful Mormons find it affirming to their faith that the early church used language, that if applied to their paradigm, would be compatible with unique doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", I wonder how affirming it would be if they really knew how thoroughly un-mormon the ECFs were? I definitely think a bit more disclosure on this point is called for, even within the pages of a devotional magazine like the Ensign. Ash's article is footnoted as if it's a scholarly piece, when it's really an apologetic. It's affirming only because the typical church member has no idea what the ECFs really believed. Ash's approach does nothing to qualify the statements of the quoted ECFs by noting that they contain echoes of lost doctrines. I realize this is what most here think Ash is doing, but the fact is he says nothing about such echoes in his piece. The result is that it tends to confirm certain false impressions about supposed similarities between ECF and LDS beliefs. I know those false impressions are being confirmed by this article, as I have certain LDS family members who were very excited about Ash's article when it came out.

Oh, and yes, I'm Eastern Orthodox. In fact, I'm off to Great Vespers. Thanks for your reply. Cheers!

Good points. Maybe I'll reply more substantively tomorrow. I thought we Catholics believed in degrees of glory. Maybe the Mormons mean something different than I understand? I know the Council of Florence was at least partly intended to assure that the Western and Eastern Churches that were seeking unification were on the same page. From the Bull, Laetantur Coeli, July 6, 1439 is the following which bears upon whether all of the saved are equally glorified:

...the souls of those, who after the reception of baptism have incurred no stain of sin at all, and also those, who after the contraction of the stain of sin, whether in their bodies, or when released from the same bodies, as we have said before, are purged, are immediately received into heaven, and see clearly the one and triune God Himself, just as He is, yet according to the diversity of merits, one more perfectly than another.

The text goes on to propose that for those who are damned, there are degrees of punishment.

Great Vespers. That would be the Vespers that precede any Sunday or a great feast? In the Catholic Church, it has fallen into disuse, but the faithful in more traditional pockets of the Church are still encouraged to participate in Sunday Vespers, or to at least say them privately. But the Vespers of Saturday, if I am not mistaken, and of any first class feast are "anticipated", celebrated on what we call the Vigil. Tonight is the Vigil of Pentecost for us. Anyway, I am glad to learn that the East has retained the custom of inviting the faithful to Vespers.

I went to a wedding once here in the United States where the Divine Liturgy was in the vernacular. Is that always the case nowadays? Perhaps like us, (I hope) there are some Eastern churches that retain an original tongue in its liturgy.

Cheers!

3DOP

PS: Wait...that was a Byzantine Catholic Church...in communion with Rome. Perhaps it is the western influence that has caused the vernacularization?

[Calm]

I thought our doctrine was that although he will never receive a body he will eventually be forgiven and that Eternal does not mean never ending, but rather just means God's.

They will live in eternal darkness, torment, and misery with Satan and his angels forever. (See D&C 76:28–35, 44–48.)

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-46-the-final-judgment?lang=eng

[Stone holm]

http://www.lds.org/m...dgment?lang=eng

Was thinking more in terms of D&C 19: 6-7, but it is not completely clear because of verses 11 and 12.

[ChristKnight]

I found the section on Salvation for the Dead in Ash's article interesting. I think it's important to note that LDS differ from Protestants and are closer to Catholics and Orthodox on the issue of those still living helping the deceased (and yes, there are obvious differences). Catholics and Orthodox believe in and practice prayer for the dead. LDS perform proxy ordinances for the dead. It was interesting when Ash quoted Clement and a non-LDS scholar as saying that when Christ went down to Hades, he preached and baptized the just. LDS do not believe that it is possible to perform baptism in the spirit world, hence why it has to be performed here by proxy. Ash says as much when he says in the references section-"Though we do not believe that Christ baptized people from the spirit world, this statement shows that the concept of baptism for the dead was very much alive among early Christians."

[Stone holm]

I found the section on Salvation for the Dead in Ash's article interesting. I think it's important to note that LDS differ from Protestants and are closer to Catholics and Orthodox on the issue of those still living helping the deceased (and yes, there are obvious differences). Catholics and Orthodox believe in and practice prayer for the dead. LDS perform proxy ordinances for the dead. It was interesting when Ash quoted Clement and a non-LDS scholar as saying that when Christ went down to Hades, he preached and baptized the just. LDS do not believe that it is possible to perform baptism in the spirit world, hence why it has to be performed here by proxy. Ash says as much when he says in the references section-"Though we do not believe that Christ baptized people from the spirit world, this statement shows that the concept of baptism for the dead was very much alive among early Christians."

Good point. It seems to me that the critical issue as to whether the ECF thought as we depends on the extent they believed in an anthropomorphic god. Otherwise some of the quotes seem to lose their punch, if becoming a god just means being reabsorbed into Divinity.

[volgadon]

3DOP and Spammer, I am a firm believer in allowing evidence to speak for itself, without Mormonising it. Differences are important for proper understanding.

[Spammer]

Good points. Maybe I'll reply more substantively tomorrow. I thought we Catholics believed in degrees of glory. Maybe the Mormons mean something different than I understand? I know the Council of Florence was at least partly intended to assure that the Western and Eastern Churches that were seeking unification were on the same page. From the Bull, Laetantur Coeli, July 6, 1439 is the following which bears upon whether all of the saved are equally glorified:

The text goes on to propose that for those who are damned, there are degrees of punishment.

Hi 3DOP, The Mormons do mean something different by degrees of glory than we do. I've never actually heard it referred to by that specific term by Catholics or Orthodox Christians, but that could be because I'm still rather new to the ancient church, having been baptized in 2008. The statement you provided from the Bull Laetantur Coeli does capture what the Orthodox believe about heaven. In the bull's words, each of us will be rewarded "according to the diversity of merits, one more perfectly than another." We don't really use the word 'merits', but it's the same idea. In the Orthodox view, although heaven and hell are very real, they're not places. They're experiential conditions, not locations or kingdoms. Nothing exists outside the presence of God and all of us will stand in the blazing light of God (to use a metaphor). Everything depends on how much we prefer God to ourselves. Those who preferred God will be able to dwell in and withstand His presence and will experience His presence as blissful joy. Those who preferred self to God will still be in His presence but will experience that Presence as pain and suffering. This is the state of being in Hell. This is God's Judgement, but in reality it's our own judgement of ourselves, in accordance with how much we have prepared ourselves for the inevitable meeting with the Divine in His fullness. God is love and calls everyone to enter into his rest. He keeps no one away. Even those who wish to stay away will still eventually find themselves in His presence and stay in His presence for eternity. All those who are in the condition of heaven will enjoy God's presence as they are able, i.e., in proportion to their degree of purity (in accordance with their merits, to use the Catholic terminology). This is the meaning of Irenaeus's couches at the wedding feast and Clement's 'grades', 'ranks', and 'abodes'. This is my understanding of the catholic-orthodox view of degrees of glory in heaven. St. Gregory the Theologian said that God Himself is Paradise and punishment for man, since each man tastes God according to the condition of his soul. The next life will be "light for those whose mind is purified...in proportion to their degree of purity" and darkness "to those who have blinded their ruling organ [i.e., their mind] in proportion to their blindness". As the bull says, there will also be degrees in Hell. It all depends on us. In this view, God is not a god who punishes. God calls everyone to His banquet and we only punish ourselves. We can have as much or as little of God as we want. According to this view, there are as many degrees in heaven (and in Hell) as there are men and women who have ever lived, now live, or will live.

The LDS view is very different and places everyone into one of three separate kingdoms in heaven. These kingdoms are actual places. I was taught that our earth will one day be celestialized and will become the highest, Celestial, Kingdom - the place where the Saints of God will reside. The Father and the Savior will dwell with us here (growing up, I heard some Mormons speculate about whether the Father has other Celestial Kingdoms on other celestialized earths). A fourth area is called Outer Darkness, the place reserved for the Devil and his angels. Only those in the highest Kingdom in heaven will enjoy the presence of the Father. Those in the highest and middle kingdom will enjoy the presence of the Son. Those in the lowest kingdom will not enjoy the presence of the Father or the Son, although Joseph Smith taught it is still a place of greater bliss and glory than life on earth. I was taught growing up by Sunday School and seminary teachers that if we could taste that lowest kingdom we would want to kill ourselves to get there. All who inherit one of these three kingdoms inherit salvation. You can go online on LDS.org and read about the kingdoms, their nature, and essential conditions for entry in Doctrine and Covenants 76.

Great Vespers. That would be the Vespers that precede any Sunday or a great feast? In the Catholic Church, it has fallen into disuse, but the faithful in more traditional pockets of the Church are still encouraged to participate in Sunday Vespers, or to at least say them privately. But the Vespers of Saturday, if I am not mistaken, and of any first class feast are "anticipated", celebrated on what we call the Vigil. Tonight is the Vigil of Pentecost for us. Anyway, I am glad to learn that the East has retained the custom of inviting the faithful to Vespers.

I went to a wedding once here in the United States where the Divine Liturgy was in the vernacular. Is that always the case nowadays? Perhaps like us, (I hope) there are some Eastern churches that retain an original tongue in its liturgy.

Cheers!

3DOP

PS: Wait...that was a Byzantine Catholic Church...in communion with Rome. Perhaps it is the western influence that has caused the vernacularization?

Yes, Great Vespers precedes any Sunday and great feast. The Orthodox still follow Byzantine time, which is based on Jewish time. The day begins at sundown on Saturday night, so Vespers is the first service of the Sabbath. As you said, the Great Vespers service is indeed anticipatory. It starts us on our weekly journey to receive our Lord during the Divine Liturgy. In my experience, the DL is celebrated in the tongue of the majority language of the parish. Orthodox churches around the world tend to be divided along national lines and the language of the services corresponds accordingly. Countries without a historic national Orthodox presence (e.g. most of Europe, Asia, and the U.S.), a mix of old country national churches and convert parishes authorized under the national church umbrella exist side by side. In Germany, for instance, you'll find Greek, Serbian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Antiochian (Syrian), and Russian Orthodox churches. These churches are all either parishes of those peoples who immigrated to Germany or German parishes organized under the authority of one of the national churches. Services in the former churches will be in the home country language with some German thrown in from time to time; services in the latter churches will be in German with some other languages thrown in, depending on which nationalities are attending. It's the same in the U.S. with the addition of a separate Orthodox Church of America (OCA), which was organized as an American branch of Russian Orthodoxy for Americans and was later granted independent status. American converts to Orthodoxy also belong to and can organize parishes in the various national churches that exist in this country. Services in convert churches are all in English with a smattering of other languages thrown in in parts of the liturgy, again depending on what nationalities belong to the parish. Most Americans think Greek Orthodox when they hear about Orthodoxy, but as you can see It's all very complicated. All of these churches are in communion with each other, follow the exact same Byzantine Rite for the Liturgy (St. John Chrysostom's), and are all under the umbrella of Eastern Orthodoxy. I converted to Orthodoxy in an Antiochian parish (out of Syria and under the authority of the Patriarch in Damascus, but a U.S. convert church comprised of 99% Americans and a few Russians, one of whom was the grandson of a Russian priest shot by the Bolsheviks in 1917). The Liturgy in that parish is all in English, with a few Slavic phrases thrown in from time to time. My current parish is OCA, mainly American and military but with some Russians, Ukrainians, and Greeks attending. The Liturgy is in English, but some phrases from Greek and Slavonic are added here and there. I also get to eat an international smorgasbord after the Liturgy on Sundays. We Orthodox fast from midnight after Great Vespers until we receive communion every Sunday. That means we all need to eat after the service, so a tradition developed centuries ago for everyone to feast afterward. Today we had Greek, Bulgarian, Russian, and American food. Really awesome!

Edited May 19, 2013 by Spammer