If God became man, why is it heretical for man to become God?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Yes. And it is def heretical to believe you have two natures like Christ... He is the only one...

No worries - so long as you don't have the two nature's of Christ. And if you don't believe that, you get the :mobster_emoji_with_gun: 

(darn, on this forum I used to visit they had that emoji... a terribly boring and uninteresting side note - I once attempted to understand this debate in the state church by reading some of the ancient debaters... omh...after pages and pages and pages and pages of stuff about why Christ has 2 natures I threw up my hands in disgust - just exaggerating - I just went  )

I am just glad you only threw up your hands.

 

[Guest]

On November 5, 2018 at 3:47 PM, RevTestament said:

I thought I might pose this question to our visitors who tend towards the traditional view. 
Do you believe the man Yeshua shall become the eternal Father?

(warning: If so you might be a redneck er I mean a closet LDS Christian....  )

According to Mosiah 5:7 (hope I remember right) he is already our Father because we have been "Spiritually begotten" by him, when we accept him as our Savior. 

[pogi]

56 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I am just glad you only threw up your hands.

That just gave me a disturbing mental image 

[RevTestament]

11 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

According to Mosiah 5:7 (hope I remember right) he is already our Father because we have been "Spiritually begotten" by him, when we accept him as our Savior. 

Yep. As the Father gives the kingdom over to Him, and we accept Him, he becomes our Father, and is all the more one with the Father. What I am saying is that we will acknowledge Him as our Father. This of course would have been even more blasphemous to the Jews of His day, and He didn't say that to them. He just went about doing the things of the Father, that we may learn to glorify Him. He didn't seek any praise. He just did, and so becomes. 

Thanks for your input.

[RevTestament]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

That just gave me a disturbing mental image 

Hey. No pukey faces on my thread! But come to think of it, that may have been close to the color I was after reading all those pages of stuff...
I dunno fer sure. I didn't look in the mirror. Nevertheless, I recommend the attempt. It provides an interesting glimpse/contrast into early medieval theology...

[mfbukowski]

Philosophy mangled with scripture...

 

 

[RevTestament]

On 11/5/2018 at 2:38 PM, pogi said:

I would say that the idea of men becoming gods is more traditional then you give tradition credit for 

There are tons of writings from the early fathers on this.  Whether or not their idea of deification/divinization is exactly like ours, they did believe that we can become gods. 

Quote

In the second century, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (c. 130–202) said that God had "become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself."[3] 

Does not the bold quote above from Irenaeus sound incredibly familiar?  Surely Lorenzo Snow was inspired by Irenaeus.

I would edit what you are saying just slightly here to state my POV.  I don't picture us becoming gods in the pagan or English sense. I don't think we get our own little fiefdom. I think it is more like what Irenaeus said, except in the notion that God became what we are. I believe God was what we are, and we made Him our God by popular vote because He was the greatest among us. So He that followed His Father, became one with the Father in His House. As the only begotten Son, or the one who followed uniquely, He became the author of our salvation as Hebrews says, and created this world for us through the power of the Father. So yes as YHWH Elohim, and those titles are significant, he was sent to this earth He designed, and sent us here according to His foreknowledge of our faithfulness in order to teach us and save us even as the Father had done before. And his glory is that we see and understand this work and glorify Him even as we glorify the Father.

So Christ did not exactly become us. He was given a mortal body once again, but was sent with life in the Father, unlike us, and perfectly free from sin, unlike us. And so he followed in the steps of the Father, and therefore as His Revelator, will inherit the holy mountains of the Father - never to return to corruption.

[RevTestament]

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Philosophy mangled with scripture...

You know, I remember looking for scripture, and it was little and far between with lots and lots of philosophy, argumentation and the like. They apparently thought much of their intellectual prowess....Or maybe they just enjoyed their new-found ability to make books, and realized now that they could write on the back side of pages as well, that this gave them twice the space for their intellectual musings.... ugh.

[pogi]

27 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I would edit what you are saying just slightly here to state my POV.  I don't picture us becoming gods in the pagan or English sense. I don't think we get our own little fiefdom. I think it is more like what Irenaeus said, except in the notion that God became what we are. I believe God was what we are, and we made Him our God by popular vote because He was the greatest among us. So He that followed His Father, became one with the Father in His House. As the only begotten Son, or the one who followed uniquely, He became the author of our salvation as Hebrews says, and created this world for us through the power of the Father. So yes as YHWH Elohim, and those titles are significant, he was sent to this earth He designed, and sent us here according to His foreknowledge of our faithfulness in order to teach us and save us even as the Father had done before. And his glory is that we see and understand this work and glorify Him even as we glorify the Father.

So Christ did not exactly become us. He was given a mortal body once again, but was sent with life in the Father, unlike us, and perfectly free from sin, unlike us. And so he followed in the steps of the Father, and therefore as His Revelator, will inherit the holy mountains of the Father - never to return to corruption.

I don’t think we “get” our own little fiefdom, I think that Godhood entails creating them - the eternal race/family is never ending.  One God begets another, ad infinitum.  Otherwise the title “God” becomes meaningless.  God of what?  What is God if not a creator?

[Maidservant]

7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Interesting...he forgot. No, I don't believe he forgot at all, and is still angry about falling, and not getting things his way. Thus, he has sworn in his wrath to lead us away. The operative here is the past. He WAS a son at one time, but he didn't want to do things God's way, and so eventually he rejected the path God had laid for us all. Exactly when this happened, I do not know, but it is apparent that it happened long before this world, because he has done the same on other worlds.

I hear Satan's story in these words:

Doctrine and Covenants 121:39

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the ^anature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little ^bauthority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise ^cunrighteous dominion.

 

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I suspect it is more that Lucifer wanted the prestige of being the Savior without all the atonement nastiness and not having to deal with everyone’s agency screwing up his perfect approach.

I can see all of these things, too. 

By the way when I say "forgot", I don't mean mere lack of recollection.  I mean the same way as when, say, a member of the Church who knows that they are a Son of God, in the sense that they've been told that and understand it mentally, but still they (we) do very wrong things, perhaps abuse family, or anything we do that is that lapse of "not remembering" that we and the other are children of God.

The value of (the template of) Lucifer (and subsequent states and titles), to me, is what it tells us about ourselves and what we are choosing, and how we have arranged ourselves in relationship to God and others (brothers and sisters)--not to tell the story of one being.  I disagree that the template tells us that to be Satan is to have lost being a son of our heavenly Father, whether meaning that one being or in the instance of anyone following that example.  Of course, he doesn't have the Son of God priesthood, he did lose that.  But in terms of what the "sectarian notion" (which was what I was responding to) is that "Satan wanted to be God and we are Satanic if we want to be God"--again, my point is that Lucifer already had that heirship, as we all do--so I ask myself--what's a more accurate story?  Both of you have perhaps fleshed out some details to it.

[RevTestament]

30 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

 

I can see all of these things, too. 

By the way when I say "forgot", I don't mean mere lack of recollection.  I mean the same way as when, say, a member of the Church who knows that they are a Son of God, in the sense that they've been told that and understand it mentally, but still they (we) do very wrong things, perhaps abuse family, or anything we do that is that lapse of "not remembering" that we and the other are children of God.

The value of (the template of) Lucifer (and subsequent states and titles), to me, is what it tells us about ourselves and what we are choosing, and how we have arranged ourselves in relationship to God and others (brothers and sisters)--not to tell the story of one being.  I disagree that the template tells us that to be Satan is to have lost being a son of our heavenly Father, whether meaning that one being or in the instance of anyone following that example.  Of course, he doesn't have the Son of God priesthood, he did lose that.  But in terms of what the "sectarian notion" (which was what I was responding to) is that "Satan wanted to be God and we are Satanic if we want to be God"--again, my point is that Lucifer already had that heirship, as we all do--so I ask myself--what's a more accurate story?  Both of you have perhaps fleshed out some details to it.

Thank you for your thoughts. This is of course somewhat speculative, but I think we virtually agree. I believe at one time as a morning star Satan had an heirship or promise to become as the Father. I don't see that as the problem. I think Satan wants us to see that as the problem because he didn't make it, and is extremely jealous. I think he didn't make it, because he wanted to do it his way rather than the Father's and got rejected. As that scripture said as he got a little authority he became unrighteous, and as one of the more powerful spirits decided to rebel against God. I don't see him as still having any heirship because he broke his side of the covenant. Whether he could now repent and gain his heirship back is unknown. Nevertheless, I believe if it wasn't he, it would be another. It is kind of like the classroom bully. If one leaves, there always seems to be another to take his place. My guess is he already has some company with him who would take his place.

[RevTestament]

50 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don’t think we “get” our own little fiefdom, I think that Godhood entails creating them - the eternal race/family is never ending.  One God begets another, ad infinitum.  Otherwise the title “God” becomes meaningless.  God of what?  What is God if not a creator?

Well, we still see it just a little differently. I don't think we create them - I think we can inherit them as co-inheritors with Christ. But yes, even as Christ begets us as His children and earns our respect so as to become our Father, the story continues. So we are begotten as "spirit babies" in Christ, and brought back to the Father with Him, as He takes His seat with the Father. Do we beget our own spirit babies? In this world, I think Yeshua becomes king. The end. But then there's that sealing thing... who will seal themselves together?

In this sense I believe some do inherit the house of the Father as elohim. I don't really envision creation so much with that. I suppose there is some of that. I see that more as being a family of immovable force/power for the rest of humanity. So the power is not in creating but in leading/teaching - that is why they are elohim. However, to the extent that elohim are teaching to create stronger spirits, then i would agree wholeheartedly.  

Thanks for your thoughts. 

[RevTestament]

On 11/5/2018 at 2:38 PM, pogi said:

I would say that the idea of men becoming gods is more traditional then you give tradition credit for 

There are tons of writings from the early fathers on this.  Whether or not their idea of deification/divinization is exactly like ours, they did believe that we can become gods. 

Does not the bold quote above from Irenaeus sound incredibly familiar?  Surely Lorenzo Snow was inspired by Irenaeus.

Well, when I speak of orthodoxy, I do not include the ante-Nicene teachings. But you are of course right. It seems theosis took  a nose dive with the rise of the tax-free church and the general rise of orthodoxy as I think of it. It seems the creeds put a lid on theosis. It certainly does seem to largely disappear from the textual history of the church after that. Then they disputed about the one or two natures of Christ and much more important things like that.... I guess the pontiff took over the fulfillment of theosis thought as God's gift to men. I have never quite thought about it like that.

[RevTestament]

8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

People say that God can do anything.  If that is actually true and they believe that there is no reason God can't make us as he is.   We don't believe that we can become like God by ourselves.  God raises us to his level and only God can do this.   If we are the children of God and children (offspring) of God and all offspring are able to become like their parents, then as children of God, we can become like God.  Just as a cub is able to become a full grown bear. 

Fairly simple and elegantly put. Why is the Father "the Father" and the Son "the Son?" I think there is a reason for those titles. In the scriptures it does seem the Son inherits the Father's seat...

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

You know, I remember looking for scripture, and it was little and far between with lots and lots of philosophy, argumentation and the like. They apparently thought much of their intellectual prowess....Or maybe they just enjoyed their new-found ability to make books, and realized now that they could write on the back side of pages as well, that this gave them twice the space for their intellectual musings.... ugh.

Well we need to guard against presentism. Those paradigms they were coming up with where state-of-the-art at the time. but I agree that reading it now it's kind of like reading their ideas of humors and leeches for medicine.

Thanks to contemporary philosophy which has been so focused on language we see instantly what the errors are but that was not the case then when everything was tied into metaphysics.

I mean remember they were seriously looking for ways to turn lead into gold.

Add that fit perfectly in with their metaphysics. Culturally it's almost impossible to imagine what it would have been like to have lived then.

[Storm Rider]

On ‎11‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 9:11 PM, Spammer said:

It seems that among many church members, if not yet officially, the view of theosis I was raised with in Utah is becoming passé.  My patriarchal blessing states that the Lord himself will tutor me in the creation of worlds. This understanding of theosis, defined in my time as becoming literally just like the Father and doing what He does, e.g., govern a section of the universe; create planets; and, with your celestial spouse (or spouses, if you’ve been sealed to more than one woman), populate them with spirit children, seems to have been (or is being) deemphasized.  We will be like the Son, if not exactly like the Father.

If true, then LDS teaching is now somewhat closer to the teaching of the church fathers than it once was, though there’s still an ontological gap - no church father taught the Father is embodied.

Spammer - I don't see the distinction that you are making. To me when I see the Father it is as if I have seen the Son; "if you have seen me you have seen the Father."  However, I do agree that I pull back from describing what that means. Part of the reason is that I don't think we have a complete picture of what it means; just a description of some of the activities.  

I appreciate and believe what you PB states. It does not conflict with belief or concept of becoming like the Father and/or the Son. 

We certainly conflict with the orthodox perception of the Father being a person of spirit. Granted, I think they are wrong in their teaching, but understand their confusion based solely on scripture and without the benefits of revelations and guidance from the Holy Spirit. 

[RevTestament]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well we need to guard against presentism. Those paradigms they were coming up with where state-of-the-art at the time. but I agree that reading it now it's kind of like reading their ideas of humors and leeches for medicine.

Thanks to contemporary philosophy which has been so focused on language we see instantly what the errors are but that was not the case then when everything was tied into metaphysics.

I mean remember they were seriously looking for ways to turn lead into gold.

Add that fit perfectly in with their metaphysics. Culturally it's almost impossible to imagine what it would have been like to have lived then.

i just don't see that it was ever so important for the Church to split over. They got into these debates, and there had to be a right. The side that won kicked out the other side, and called them Nestorians, or Arians, or whatever the heretical word of the day was. This sadly went on and on in the Church splitting and splitting into the Eastern Orthodox, the Syrian/Nestorian Church, the Church of the East, the Coptic Church, etc down into the present some odd 30,000 denominations.

A lot of these debates were over the nature of God: substance, beings, personages, natures of Christ, etc. But later they found other things to disagree on, when sadly I think the night had come when no man could work. Then there is me who disagrees with them all  The Church just always thought it had to be right rather than to accept that God teaches precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. I have to conclude that even our Church does it. So I explore the mysteries on my own (OK - I'll give you a little co-exploration credit  ), and thank the Church for what it has taught me. Most of all though, I have to thank Christ. I suppose that may be the nature of things until the end, when the gospel is fulfilled.

(And now for my BoM speech - I want to thank God for making me unlike them, so full of their metaphysics and medical leeches cure-all, and choosing me to be a valiant spirit in these latter days....OK, OK.....Otayyyyyy). 

[Guest]

23 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Yep. As the Father gives the kingdom over to Him, and we accept Him, he becomes our Father, and is all the more one with the Father. What I am saying is that we will acknowledge Him as our Father. This of course would have been even more blasphemous to the Jews of His day, and He didn't say that to them. He just went about doing the things of the Father, that we may learn to glorify Him. He didn't seek any praise. He just did, and so becomes. 

Thanks for your input.

Well let's face it, Christianity is not the largest believing group on Earth by far. As Mormons (oh wait, "Latter-day Saints") and we barley register within that group. So both Jews and Muslims consider our beliefs as blasphemy in one form or another, and neither believe God had, or could have a Son, much less that that Son, is "God". Sadly a reason why many Muslims Nations won't allow or kill Christians, and even more Jews. But, I don't and we don't choose what we believe due to popular opinion. We just believe what we believe to be true, and are willing to live with our choices, or at least I do. 

[theplains]

On 11/5/2018 at 6:31 PM, pogi said:

As a caterpillar now is, a butterfly once was; as a butterfly now is, a caterpillar may become. 

Same nature, but we call them different things. 

 

Using your analogy, would that mean you are presently a "deity in embryo?"

Thanks,
Jim

[theplains]

On 11/5/2018 at 6:58 PM, mfbukowski said:

I agree, makes sense to me!

As the Bible says, "ye are gods"...

We are gods in embyro, growing up, just like Our Parents

Verse 2 - "How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? ... Verse 6 - "I have said, Ye are
gods; and all of you are children of the most High.  Verse 7 - "But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the
princes."

Do you believe verses 2 and 7 refer to the sinful 'gods?'

Thanks,
Jim

 

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, theplains said:

Using your analogy, would that mean you are presently a "deity in embryo?"

Thanks,
Jim

Quote

 

… What is [man]? He had his being in the eternal worlds; he existed before he came here. He is not only the son of man, but he is the son of God also. He is a God in embryo, and possesses within him a spark of that eternal flame which was struck from the blaze of God’s eternal fire in the eternal world, and is placed here upon the earth that he may possess true intelligence, true light, true knowledge,—that he may know himself—that he may know God—that he may know something about what he was before he came here—that he may know something about what he is destined to enjoy in the eternal worlds.

If we take man, he is said to have been made in the image of God, for the simple reason that he is a son of God, and being his son, he is, of course, his offspring, an emanation from God, in whose likeness, we are told, he is made. He did not originate from a chaotic mass of matter, moving or inert, but came forth possessing, in an embryonic state, all the faculties and powers of a God. And when he shall be perfected, and have progressed to maturity, he will be like his Father—a God, being indeed His offspring. As the horse, the ox, the sheep, and every living creature, including man, propagates its own species and perpetuates its own kind, so does God perpetuate his.

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-john-taylor/chapter-1?lang=eng

 

 

 

[mnn727]

On 11/5/2018 at 3:59 PM, Tacenda said:

Well, it does mention Satan convincing Eve that she can become like God in the Bible.

Genesis 3: “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

If you are going to quote, please quote the entire thing

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

Verse 2 - "How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? ... Verse 6 - "I have said, Ye are
gods; and all of you are children of the most High.  Verse 7 - "But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the
princes."

Do you believe verses 2 and 7 refer to the sinful 'gods?'

Thanks,
Jim

 

Here is the whole quote from Psalm 82

Quote

 

1{A Psalm of Asaph.} God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

2How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

5They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

8Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

 

This is my off-the -top of my head interpretation- I have not looked up anything- it's just off the top of my head

The scene takes place in the Council of the Gods in the premortal life.  Father is judging who will come to earth and who will not- those who did not accept his plan but put forth Satan's plan

Verse 2- addressed to those who were following Satan's plan- "How long will you accept these evil spirits"?

Verse 3- 4 - "Be good!"- Do good things!

Verse 5- "You do not understand the folly of Satan's plan and refuse to understand- all the world is messed up because of you!"

Verse 6- " I have told you you are my sons, and could have eternal life, but now you will die - permanently the second death- as men die the first death only- you will fall like a prince overthrown from their high calling, dying as he does"

Verse 7- You faithful God (Jesus) - Arise!  I will accept you volunteering to put forth my plan- you shall judge the earth and shall inherit all nations.

Again- I have not followed the thread nor have I looked up to see if that is the "official" interpretation- that is strictly my opinion based on pretty much nothing but my understanding of the gospel, because you asked me to do so.

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, theplains said:

Verse 2 - "How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? ... Verse 6 - "I have said, Ye are
gods; and all of you are children of the most High.  Verse 7 - "But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the
princes."

Do you believe verses 2 and 7 refer to the sinful 'gods?'

Thanks,
Jim

 

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Here is the whole quote from Psalm 82

This is my off-the -top of my head interpretation- I have not looked up anything- it's just off the top of my head

The scene takes place in the Council of the Gods in the premortal life.  Father is judging who will come to earth and who will not- those who did not accept his plan but put forth Satan's plan

Verse 2- addressed to those who were following Satan's plan- "How long will you accept these evil spirits"?

Verse 3- 4 - "Be good!"- Do good things!

Verse 5- "You do not understand the folly of Satan's plan and refuse to understand- all the world is messed up because of you!"

Verse 6- " I have told you you are my sons, and could have eternal life, but now you will die - permanently the second death- as men die the first death only- you will fall like a prince overthrown from their high calling, dying as he does"

Verse 7- You faithful God (Jesus) - Arise!  I will accept you volunteering to put forth my plan- you shall judge the earth and shall inherit all nations.

Again- I have not followed the thread nor have I looked up to see if that is the "official" interpretation- that is strictly my opinion based on pretty much nothing but my understanding of the gospel, because you asked me to do so.

I have been through this scripture so many times, but I doubt I have ever really opened anyone's eyes with it. 

How I have come to understand it is hopefully with a Hebrew understanding. The English translation is just misleading. Being elohim is not the same as being El Elyon, the Most High. Elohim is a family title for the house of the Lord. When we are begotten in Christ as sons and daughters, we are heading for the house/family of Elohim. Elohim is the plural of Eloah, which is used in the OT in reference to being the stone of Israel or the rock of our salvation. It's a term that wasn't used much by the time of the diaspora. Instead Elohim became very much used. I am YHWH your Elohim, I read as I am the life/word of your family of immovable force/power. That is used over and over again, and is different from I am the Most High Power - a title which is used only of the Father in all of scripture. 

Thank you Jim for not using the gods means judges argument there. Shoftim means judges. I would think God knows the difference. Further Yeshua Himself refers to this scripture by telling the Jews "Isn't it written in your law, I have said ye are elohim?" Then he  emphasizes His point by saying that the law cannot be broken. He really has no argument if elohim means unrighteous judges. It just doesn't.

[Spammer]

On 11/6/2018 at 1:14 PM, RevTestament said:

That is honestly put Spammer. I have been a member of this Church since 1976. However, I went inactive so I may not be able to give a completely thorough appraisal of everything which has transpired since then. Nevertheless, when I returned around 1998, it seems to me the Church was doing a little "back pedaling" for lack of a better word. Hinckley didn't deny theosis, but it seemed to me it was definitely deemphasized along with other past teachings. It seemed to me there was a concerted effort to "mainstream the Church" as I call it. 

Your comment about the church "fathers" is somewhat presumptive to me. I'm sure you do not include Arius in your list of church "fathers." And there were many churches in the east who reinstated him. Don't get all bent out of shape. I am not saying Arius had a grip on the mysteries, but I do believe He wished to follow Christ, and wished to follow scripture. Why can't he be a "church father?" I think what bothered the western church is that he believed he could become like Christ in a literal sense. There was definitely a tendency at that time for adoptionist phrases in the scriptures to get edited out. We now have enough early manuscripts to see a few such places where it seems Christ was put on an absolutely equal footing with the Father, rather than as His servant, and gets referred to as Theos/God instead of as Christos, His annointed. Again, do not get bent out of shape. I am not saying that He was not Elohim, nor that He was not YHWH. I believe He was, but like us He had a Father - El Elyon, the Most High Power, and He was the son of the Most High per Luke. I just believe He literally showed the way to the holiest of all. This way was evident in the keys of scripture, the oracles, rather than something mandated by the understanding of men. Must I believe these early disciples really understood God better than me? Herein is the beauty of the restored gospel. I can take what was true and build upon it, rather than having to accept all of the early interpretations, and trying to understand them as unexplicable mysteries. I don't believe that is what God intended. I believe per Revelation, He intends the mystery of God to be finished.

No, I don't consider Arius to be a church father since I belong to the Nicene Creedal church aka Catholic Christianity.  It's a big umbrella that excludes Arianism.  You're right, the battle with Arius' teaching didn't end at the council.  Constantine himself later flipped and embraced Arius, exiling Athanasius and other outspoken Catholics who represented the majority view at the Council.  It's not commonly known that the priest who baptized Constantine on his deathbed was an Arian.  No doubt Arius wished to follow Christ; he's not a church father because he taught false doctrine.  By the way, the dispute between Arius and orthodox Catholics was only whether the Son is a created being.  Both agreed with Irenaeus that God is a disembodied spirit, outside time and space, who created everything out of nothing.  You won't find any church father or Arian whose writings we have preserved who believed that the Father is embodied.  We do have church fathers who believed matter is eternal (e.g., Justin Martyr), but that's because they were Platonists.  LDS teaching has that in common with Greek philosophy.

Was Arius right?  Must you believe the early disciples really understood God better than you?  There are many voices and interpreters, all of whom read scripture for themselves and are convinced that the author of a passage meant exactly what they think he meant.  It's just disorganized chaos with no way to know the truth unless God appointed a human agency to be the arbiter.  If I read scripture and conclude that my interpretation is correct, I set myself up as that arbiter.  That's the way of Protestantism and LDS church members who rely on the Spirit alone (i.e., their own private interpretation) to determine what truth is.  There's no way through the impasse without prophet, pope, or church council, is some other agent whose God-appointed job is to be the arbiter.  I follow the ancient popes and church councils.  That's why I don't consider Arius to be a church father. Yes, my belief in the objectivity of the arbiter’s pronouncements is subjectively determined. We’re all in the same boat. And to clarify, in case it comes up, I did not pray and ask God which church is true. After deciding I wanted to be a Christian again, I reviewed the ancient writings for myself and concluded that Mormonism is nowhere to be found. I followed where the weight of the evidence pointed. It was that simple.

Edited November 8, 2018 by Spammer