Early Church Fathers

[arieh0310]

amgid:

But the remainder of the quotes you had given, especially those in the next two posts (#35 & #36), tend to be speculative, and therefore they are an unreliable guide. They cannot be trusted as an accurate representation of LDS doctrine as revealed in LDS scripture.

I feel like I am herding cats again, do you or do you not believe that you will one day become a god of your own planet and populate it with your own spirit children? Won’t you become “just as God is”? This is nowhere near Catholic or EO theology and you cannot find that idea anywhere in ECF writings. What I have been fighting is the the notion that some ECF writers held LDS doctrine, but that hypothosis can only be held utilizing a copy/paste, pull the quote out of context methodology.

 

[amgid]

arieh0310:

I feel like I am herding cats again, …

You sure sound like it! It must be a bad habit you got yourself into!

…do you or do you not believe that you will one day become a god …

Absolutely! Just like the ECFs did! Just like the LDS scriptures I had quoted for you say!

…of your own planet and populate it with your own spirit children?

Absolutely NOT! No such doctrine is taught in LDS scripture. That is not true LDS doctrine.

Won’t you become “just as God is”?

Absolutely NOT! LDS doctrine clearly teaches that God will always remain supreme over all. Go and read again carefully the scriptural quotes I had given you in post #33. That is where the LDS doctrine of the deification of man is taught. It says that “…they are gods, even the sons of God” (D&C 76:58). A father remains superior to his son. It also says that "…all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s (D&C 76:59). That means that God the Father will remain supreme overall. This is in perfect agreement with what the ECFs believed. Clement of Alexandria taught: “… and they have received the title of “gods,” since they are destined to be enthroned with the other “gods” who are ranked next below the Saviour.” how much closer do you want it to get?

This is nowhere near Catholic or EO theology and you cannot find that idea anywhere in ECF writings.

What is nowhere near what? I wish I knew what you are talking about.

What I have been fighting is the the notion that some ECF writers held LDS doctrine, but that hypothosis can only be held utilizing a copy/paste, pull the quote out of context methodology.

Are you suggesting that I have been misquoting the ECFs? Would you like me to scan the relevant pages and post them for you on the board? If that is allowed and possible I am willing to do so.

amgid

 

[Paul_G]

I have spent some time lately reading some of the early Christian writings. It has appeared to me that the earlier the writings the less they read like what some have called “the doctrines of the Church we have come to know”. They also do not sound completely familiar to LDS doctrine either, however, as I read through these writings I find some ideas of key doctrinal thought closer to the LDS belief system, than the current orthodox view.

 

[majick275]

Paul G:

I have spent some time lately reading some of the early Christian writings. It has appeared to me that the earlier the writings the less they read like what some have called “the doctrines of the Church we have come to know”. They also do not sound completely familiar to LDS doctrine either, however, as I read through these writings I find some ideas of key doctrinal thought closer to the LDS belief system, than the current orthodox view.

But are you reading them objectively?

Are you reading them from a Catholic perspective, wanting to believe that they support catholic doctrine?

Or are you viewing them through the lens of LDS doctrine hoping to find additional “proof” of the divinity of Joseph Smiths church?

I would like for you to reference which specific writings that you felt contained doctrinal ideas that were closer to LDS views than Catholic. (even better if you could explain why you came to this conclusion)

 

[arieh0310]

Paul G:

I have spent some time lately reading some of the early Christian writings. It has appeared to me that the earlier the writings the less they read like what some have called “the doctrines of the Church we have come to know”. They also do not sound completely familiar to LDS doctrine either, however, as I read through these writings I find some ideas of key doctrinal thought closer to the LDS belief system, than the current orthodox view.

The early Fathers promulgated LDS doctrines? What have you been reading the Gospel of Thomas or the Acts of Andrew? If you read the ECF writings with an understanding of the language used by Catholics then and now you will walk away seeing how thoroughly Catholic their writings are (some Marian devotions can make non-Catholics squirm if they don’t realize the intent of the words used). Have you read the epistles of Clement (AD 80) or Ignatius (AD 110) or Polycarp (AD 155)? Have you read the apologetic works of Justin Martyr (AD 148) or Irenaeus (AD 180)? I came to the ECF writings with the intent to prove that the Catholic Church’s doctrines had no basis in history, but as Newman said “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”. I had a full, working knowledge of LDS doctrines when I read these works and did not pull a single distinctive LDS doctrine out of the writings. So, as a Protestant wanting to prove Protestantism correct I came away convinced of the truth of Catholicism not of Mormonism.

 

[Paul_G]

majick275:

But are you reading them objectively?

I don’t know whether anyone can completely divest one’s self of their spiritual leanings. However I do search out wisdom and spiritual truths from sources other than LDS. There are many LDS that earnestly search out and study such material, not to try and poke holes in someone’s belief but to gain insight, and benefit from some wisdom that might be imparted. We may not accept the creeds and beliefs of others, but that is not say that there is nothing to be learned.

Are you reading them from a Catholic perspective, wanting to believe that they support catholic doctrine?

When I read, I try not to view the writing as Catholic or Protestant, but as from people who themselves were earnestly seeking the ways of our Savior to the best of their knowledge. As I read some things ring familiar to me, some don’t, and there are others that can be interpreted in equally valid ways depending on your doctrinal view. Not that there can be two truths, but enough vagueness in wording appears so that opposing claims can be made.

Or are you viewing them through the lens of LDS doctrine hoping to find additional “proof” of the divinity of Joseph Smiths church?

I do not have to search for proof I have the wittiness of the Holy Ghost to my spirit as to the office our Father in Heaven granted Joseph Smith.

I would like for you to reference which specific writings that you felt contained doctrinal ideas that were closer to LDS views than Catholic. (even better if you could explain why you came to this conclusion)

I was reading St. Irenaeus “The Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching” paragraph 9

*9. Now this world is encompassed by seven heavens in which dwell powers and angels and and angels and archangels, doing service to God, the Almighty and Maker of all things: not as though He was in need, but that they may not be idle and unprofitable and ineffectual. Wherefore also the Spirit of God is manifold in (His) indwelling, and in seven forms of service is He reckoned by the prophet Isaiah, as resting on the Son of God, that is the Word, in His coming as man. The Spirit of God, he says, shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of might, (the Spirit of knowledge) and of godliness; the Spirit of the fear of God shall fill him. Now the heaven which is first from above, and encompasses the rest, is (that of) wisdom; and the second from it, of understanding; and the third, of counsel; and the fourth, reckoned from above, (is that) of might; and the fifth, of knowledge; and the sixth, of godliness; and the seventh, this firmament of ours, is full of the fear of that Spirit which gives light to the heavens. For, as the pattern (of this), Moses received the seven-branched candlestick, that shined continually in the holy place; for as a pattern of the heavens he received this service, according to that which the Word spake unto him: Thou shalt make (it) according to all the pattern of the things which thou hast seen in the mount. *

Although it is not the same in description as LDS have it, this passage does describes different levels in the economy of our Father in Heaven which indeed has a familiar ring to me.

 

[Paul_G]

arieh0310:

So, as a Protestant wanting to prove Protestantism correct I came away convinced of the truth of Catholicism not of Mormonism.

I read and study for my own edification not for ammunition. Of coarse my comments are my own opinion and our experiences had different outcomes. I am sure that there are the beginnings of later Catholic thought in the writings of the first century. However, I try my best to glean what is actually being said, taking into account the circumstances and motivating factors of the time. What I’m trying to say is that “I” recognize teachings in some of these writings that would fit quite comfortably in my Sunday school lesson.

 

[arieh0310]

Paul G:

What I’m trying to say is that “I” recognize teachings in some of these writings that would fit quite comfortably in my Sunday school lesson.

I think one reason why Mormons think they see LDS doctrines everywhere is that the LDS church has taken orthodox language and redefined most terms to suit their peculiar theology. That is why a Mormon missionary can say with a straight face that they believe in the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, or Christ’s Atonement when in fact we disagree on every one of these points and more.

 

[amgid]

arieh0310:

I think one reason why Mormons think they see LDS doctrines everywhere is that the LDS church has taken orthodox language and redefined most terms to suit their peculiar theology. That is why a Mormon missionary can say with a straight face that they believe in the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, or Christ’s Atonement when in fact we disagree on every one of these points and more.

I read that as a sign of desperaton.

amgid

 

[arieh0310]

amgid:

I read that as a sign of desperaton.

amgid

It is a sign of exasperation. You know, you are full of platitudes but can you refute the fact that the LDS church has redefined nearly every orthodox Christian term? I think it is a deceptive “marketing” tactic to portray their beliefs as mainstream.

 

[amgid]

arieh0310:

It is a sign of exasperation. You know, you are full of platutudes but can you refute the fact that the LDS church has redefined nearly every orthodox Christian term? I think it is a deceptive “marketing” tactic to portray their beliefs as mainstream.

I never claimed that LDS beliefs are “mainstream”.

amgid

 

[arieh0310]

amgid:

I never claimed that LDS beliefs are “mainstream”.

amgid

Nor did I, but the terminology is.

 

[Paul_G]

arieh0310:

I think one reason why Mormons think they see LDS doctrines everywhere is that the LDS church has taken orthodox language and redefined most terms to suit their peculiar theology. That is why a Mormon missionary can say with a straight face that they believe in the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, or Christ’s Atonement when in fact we disagree on every one of these points and more.

I don’t know whether anyone can claim them as LDS doctrine, and I don’t call them that. However, there are similar thoughts and ideas being expressed. As I said, the earlier the writings the more familiar they sound to me. I also don’t believe we have redefined terminology; we believe we have definitively defined them.

 

[arieh0310]

Paul G:

I don’t know whether anyone can claim them as LDS doctrine, and I don’t call them that. However, there are similar thoughts and ideas being expressed. As I said, the earlier the writings the more familiar they sound to me. I also don’t believe we have redefined terminology; we believe we have definitively defined them.

So far you have only shown a quote from Irenaeus talking about the levels of heaven, something he doesn’t fully flesh out. This idea can be harmonized with Catholic theology (there are degrees of reward in heaven just as there are degrees of punishment in hell). Not exactly a homerun for early LDS doctrine.

Also, you seem to be playing a game of semantics here about the redefinition of terms. For nearly 2000 years Catholic theologians have developed words to define specific theological truths. 1800 years later Mormons use the same words with different definitions. Instead of using Trinity the LDS should have used Trideity (or similar). When Lutherans deviated from the Catholic definition of the Real Presence they used consubstantiation rather than transubstantiation.

 

[BJRumph]

Although it is not the same in description as LDS have it, this passage does describes different levels in the economy of our Father in Heaven which indeed has a familiar ring to me.

But “ringing familliarly” does not equate to ‘support for’.

Surely you can see the logical falliciousness of such a position. A Fatima devotee would never use the lds claim for the necessity of prophets to support the prophecies of fatima.

That both (and many) religions aknowledge an “economy of Heaven” does not bridge any differences between them. Indeed, topics of discussion do not bridge gaps or allow for equasion of economies. It is in those details that you are suggesting (however subtly) be ignored wherein the distinctions and evaluations can be made.

That two people agree as to a topic of conversation does not suggest that their conclusions are mutually supportable.

Therefore to suggest, in the context of the thread, that because the ECFs discussed an economy of Heaven (something found in the Bible, btw), does not give rise to the idea that they would support the lds vision of such, nor give any support to such.

 

[majick275]

*9. Now this world is encompassed by seven heavens in which dwell powers and angels and and angels and archangels, doing service to God, the Almighty and Maker of all things: not as though He was in need, but that they may not be idle and unprofitable and ineffectual. Wherefore also the Spirit of God is manifold in (His) indwelling, and in seven forms of service is He reckoned by the prophet Isaiah, as resting on the Son of God, that is the Word, in His coming as man. The Spirit of God, he says, shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of might, (the Spirit of knowledge) and of godliness; the Spirit of the fear of God shall fill him. Now the heaven which is first from above, and encompasses the rest, is (that of) wisdom; and the second from it, of understanding; and the third, of counsel; and the fourth, reckoned from above, (is that) of might; and the fifth, of knowledge; and the sixth, of godliness; and the seventh, this firmament of ours, is full of the fear of that Spirit which gives light to the heavens. For, as the pattern (of this), Moses received the seven-branched candlestick, that shined continually in the holy place; for as a pattern of the heavens he received this service, according to that which the Word spake unto him: Thou shalt make (it) according to all the pattern of the things which thou hast seen in the mount. *

Am I the only one that sees this as symbolic speech? This reads much like Daniel or even Revelations in it’s use of numbers and realtionships.

The repeated use of the number seven, a heaven of wisdom, a heaven of knowledge, etc. I certainly do not see any evidence in this quote of literal “degrees” of glory being described. (at least not in the LDS sense of separate kingdoms for differing levels of exaltation/salvation) Obviously “Heaven” isn’t shaped like a menorah.

I read this as saying that Heaven is composed of all these things and that therefore we should seek to understand and obtain these things to come closer to God. (one could also make a point for us needing to stay busy serving the Lord, not because he needs us to do his work but because we need to be doing it)

In any case, to compare this to Celestial( with 3 subdivisions), terrestrial and telestial kingdoms of LDS belief certainly seems a stretch.

BTW, Do any LDS here believe that Heavenly Father has any “ministering angels” who were from his world and reached celestial glory but not “eternal increase”?

 

[Paul_G]

arieh0310:

So far you have only shown a quote from Irenaeus talking about the levels of heaven, something he doesn’t fully flesh out. This idea can be harmonized with Catholic theology (there are degrees of reward in heaven just as there are degrees of punishment in hell). Not exactly a homerun for early LDS doctrine.

I am not putting forth that there are two independent sources for these ideas, there is much Catholic Doctrine that remains, in some form, of the original teachings, which LDS believe hold in their fullness.

Yes, I only mentioned one instance of a familiar idea to show that I had read some that I considered so. Of coarse there are things written that are not similar to what LDS teach. However some things continue to shine through which would be called unorthodox today by some. Here is another one on the resurrection of the body. Sounds good to me.

Fragment from Irenaeus XII.

We therefore have formed the belief that [our] bodies also do rise again. For although they go to corruption, yet they do not perish; for the earth, receiving the remains, preserves them, even like fertile seed mixed with more fertile ground. Again, as a bare grain is sown, and, germinating by the command of God its Creator, rises again, clothed upon and glorious, but not before it has died and suffered decomposition, and become mingled with the earth; so [it is seen from this, that] we have not entertained a vain belief in the resurrection of the body. But although it is dissolved at the appointed time, because of the primeval disobedience, it is placed, as it were, in the crucible of the earth, to be recast again; not then as this corruptible [body], but pure, and no longer subject to decay: so that to each body its own soul shall be restored; and when it is clothed upon with this, it shall not experience sorrow, but shall rejoice, continuing permanently in a state of purity, having for its companion a just consort, not an insidious one, possessing in every respect the things pertaining to it, it shall receive these with perfect accuracy; it shall not receive bodies diverse from what they had been, nor delivered from suffering or disease, nor as [rendered] glorious, but as they departed this life, in sins or in righteous actions: and such as they were, such shall they be clothed with upon resuming life; and such as they were in unbelief, such shall they be faithfully judged.

Also, you seem to be playing a game of semantics here about the redefinition of terms. For nearly 2000 years Catholic theologians have developed words to define specific theological truths. 1800 years later Mormons use the same words with different definitions. Instead of using Trinity the LDS should have used Trideity (or similar). When Lutherans deviated from the Catholic definition of the Real Presence they used consubstantiation rather than transubstantiation.

As for semantics the use of the words “have developed” is a correct description of an evolution of theological terminology. Trinity is not a word that I use myself in the description of the Godhead.

It is quite possible there are some LDS that use this term incorrectly, however the term most commonly used is “Godhead”. There are times when I have heard it being used as in the passages below. You are truly right that Catholic and LDS teaching on this teaching is very different. So I think on this point, I find myself in agreement with you.
“If by “the doctrine of the Trinity” one means the New Testament teaching that there is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost, all three of whom are fully divine, then Latter-day Saints believe in the doctrine of the Trinity… However, if by “the doctrine of the Trinity” one means the doctrine formulated by the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon and elaborated upon by subsequent theologians and councils–that God is three coequal persons in one substance or essence–then Latter-day Saints do not believe it. They do not believe it,…” *(from the article “The Doctrinal Exclusion: Trinity and the Nature of God” by Stephen E. Robinson)

 

[Paul_G]

*

Am I the only one that sees this as symbolic speech? This reads much like Daniel or even Revelations in it’s use of numbers and realtionships

*.

In symbolism one thought or idea stands in for another. For example “the truth is as bright as the sun”.(my example)

In the above passage “now the heaven which is (not as is) which is first from above”, and again “and encompasses the rest, is (not as is)…(of that) widom”. The symbolism of which you speak can be seen in the seven-branched candlestick that Moses received “ for (as a) pattern of the heavens he received …”. Here is the symbolism for real.

 

[Paul_G]

BJRumph:

But “ringing familliarly” does not equate to ‘support for’.

Perhaps not, but “support for” is not what I why I read the material of other faiths. The Holy Ghost is my “support for” in these types of matters.

Surely you can see the logical falliciousness of such a position. A Fatima devotee would never use the lds claim for the necessity of prophets to support the prophecies of fatima.

LDS prophets teach and it is the Holy Ghost that testifies to our spirit of its truthfulness not the other way around.

That two people agree as to a topic of conversation does not suggest that their conclusions are mutually supportable.

I agree

Therefore to suggest, in the context of the thread, that because the ECFs discussed an economy of Heaven (something found in the Bible, btw), does not give rise to the idea that they would support the lds vision of such, nor give any support to such.

Again, directly from these writing perhaps not, but I believe some ideas to be remnants of the elements of original teachings, in which the Holy Ghost confirms to my Spirit. Many I’m sure will not share in my joy in this my personal experience.

 

[arieh0310]

Paul G:

arieh0310:

However some things continue to shine through which would be called unorthodox today by some. Here is another one on the resurrection of the body. Sounds good to me.

Fragment from Irenaeus XII.

Are you saying that the Irenaeus quote would be unorthodox to a Catholic? I don’t see an issue with it.