Early Church Fathers

[majick275]

I don’t disagree with you on being tough on Catholic ECFs. They must show the rational basis for their teachings as well as scriptural “support”.

As far as the level of spiritual guidance in the various teachings of LDS leaders, we must look at their own claims as to whether or not something is “of God” as well as comparing it to the existing canon.

We find numerous examples within LDS scripture of canonized scripture directing the people to change practices that were directed by previous canonized scripture. This is not necessarily “wrong” as Jesus certainly changed practices that the Jews were directed in by scripture. It DOES cause us to have to look at LDS leaders as “able” to overrule the canon.

Flexible doctrine that is a linear progression from carnal man to godly man is expected. Flexible doctrine that flip flops or regresses or moves laterally is at the very least confusing and quite possibly false.

Where doctrine isn’t clearly defined in the LDS churhc may not be essential to salvation, but then the LDS go beyond that simple need and differentiate “exaltation” that may in fact require these doctrines. I hesitate to use this example because (out of respect for you) we can’t venture very far down this path, but consider the Temple ordinances… they are considered CRITICAL to exaltation yet the doctrines within them are most certainly NOT clearly defined even within the Temples themselves. (not much in the way of “temple manuals” or instructor led, interactive classes inside) You will not find these ordinances spelled out in the canon as you would the sacrament prayers.

As to your own method of doctrinal determination (seeking a personal spiritual witness) that is laudable (provided that it was combined with thoughtful study of the issue) but the skeptic must ask “what if the spirit were to tell you that the prophet is wrong about a doctrinal issue?”

 

[arieh0310]

mormon fool:

Mormon prophets and apostles do not claim infallibility. We have an understanding that they won’t lead the church astray, but that is not to say that their humanity doesn’t play a factor. I think TOmN has called this “functional inerrancy” especially when LDS members have agreed to make certain prophetic teachings binding on themselves through the “charism” of common consent.

later,
fool

“functional inerrancy” seems to be semantic gymnastics to me, a self-refuting idea. How can one not lead the church astray when no doctrinal pronouncements can be considered the “Gospel Truth”? I think a frustration that most non-LDS have with most LDS members is that you feel like you are herding cats when you try to pin down what they truly believe.

 

[mormon_fool]

“functional inerrancy” seems to be semantic gymnastics to me, a self-refuting idea. How can one not lead the church astray when no doctrinal pronouncements can be considered the “Gospel Truth”? I think a frustration that most non-LDS have with most LDS members is that you feel like you are herding cats when you try to pin down what they truly believe.

Hey if you want to see semantic gymnastics check out my Doctrinal Spectrum Index thread . I don’t think “functional inerrancy” is self refuting as much as it embraces the following two ideas.

1. We recognize that human understanding is finite and since everything we know about God is limited by our abilities to comprehend and communicate. Enter in “errancy” in any doctrinal source that humans have anything to with, whether it was recording a revelatory experience or interpretting it. With these limitations we recognize that there are some sources that are accurate enough, that even if there are errors in them, they are beyond our comprehension to detect them or determine their significance. In the future, if further wisdom and experience allows us to detect such errors and if they are significant enough, we full expect our prophet to offer a timely correction. We can sum this idea as See no error, hear no error, there’s no error here; but if there is, in the due time of the Lord it will get corrected.
2. Suppose there is an error identified that hasn’t been corrected. Things are not at a total loss as I quoted from the D&C last thread, the discerning mind with the aid of the Spirit can still recover truth and consider the source valuable yet. For “functionally inerrant” scriptures I can charitably overlook errors and still be profoundly greatful for the truths I do comprehend that are helping me progress in my spiritual journey. The errors, if any, found in the LDS scriptures are not such that they are a “stumbling block” in my quest.

I ran across this little couplet, I don’t know the 1st half is true, but I think the last part drives home the difference between theory and practice and the difference between apologetics and devotion:

“In the Catholic church, the pope is infallible, but no one believes it. In the Mormon church, the prophet is fallible, but no one believes it.”

later,
fool

 

[arieh0310]

mormon fool:

Enter in “errancy” in any doctrinal source that humans have anything to with, whether it was recording a revelatory experience or interpretting it. With these limitations we recognize that there are some sources that are accurate enough, that even if there are errors in them, they are beyond our comprehension to detect them or determine their significance. In the future, if further wisdom and experience allows us to detect such errors and if they are significant enough, we full expect our prophet to offer a timely correction.

Wow! That is eye openning! What that boils down to is only what the prophet gets right is infallible, something anyone can do. Thank God for the infallible Magisterium who promulgates the whole truth without error or revision.

 

[arieh0310]

mormon fool:

“In the Catholic church, the pope is infallible, but no one believes it. In the Mormon church, the prophet is fallible, but no one believes it.”

I would alter your couplet to read: “In the Catholic Church, the pope is infallible, and many believe it. In the Mormon church, the prophet is fallible, and many believe it.”

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

I don’t disagree with you on being tough on Catholic ECFs. They must show the rational basis for their teachings as well as scriptural “support”.

Now we’re talking. I am sure they measure up in many respects. They are after all the “good guys” in Christian history as one of my institute instructor called them.

Flexible doctrine that is a linear progression from carnal man to godly man is expected. Flexible doctrine that flip flops or regresses or moves laterally is at the very least confusing and quite possibly false.

The human learning curve is characterized by trial and error where we learn for mistakes and have to back track. Take my engineering assignments, my professor could post the solutions manual before I attempt to work a problem out on my own. If I could just copy down the right answer I probably wouldn’t care about it very much and I wouldn’t acquire the problem solving skills that I can apply elsewhere. Extending this analogy to a church with a learning curve and making God the instructor, we can suppose that there will be some mistakes and back-tracking. I think it unrealistic to expect strictly linear progression.

If we compare the LDS church, young as it is, with the formative early years of the Early Christian Church, I am guessing the learning curves will look much more similar. For example, there was a lot of flip-flopping between Arians and the trinitarians in the councils held in the century after the one at Nicea.

the skeptic must ask “what if the spirit were to tell you that the prophet is wrong about a doctrinal issue?”

It would depend on how major or how irreconcilable the doctrinal point is. For example, if it doesn’t affect my ability to believe in the central truth claims of the LDS church, I would probably let it slide. Still I would try to verify my spiritual witness through rational means. As a mormon I place high value in both having my heart and mind dictating the same thing. I would also probably bounce my ideas off my spiritual peers and mentors to get their feedback. If it is important enough for the Spirit to witness to me about some error, then I expect He will do so for other people too. I would do what it takes to be spiritual worthy: fast, pray, do some service, attend holy places, etc.

If I am too lazy to do all this, I would rather 2nd guess myself on the issue than the prophet, who has gained my trust over the years and deserves the benefit of a doubt. Sometimes there is nothing wrong in being lazy in the search for truth. If time and effort is spent searching after some obscure piece of trivia, then one suspects that time is better spent elsewhere. We should allow ourselves to be inspired in how we make use of our time on Earth.

But, say I was dilligent, and my spirtual witness held up and got stronger. My loyalty to the church would tell me to not make a lot of public criticism over the issue, I am free to hold my own beliefs in private, but if a disagreement is trivial or somebody more respected in the LDS community has already voiced their differences, perhaps then I would cautiously be more open about my private beliefs. I would seek direction from the Spirit on how to conduct myself. And I would patiently wait for the church to catch up with me in enlightenment through the proper channels.

later,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

arieh0310:

I would alter your couplet to read: “In the Catholic Church, the pope is infallible, and many believe it. In the Mormon church, the prophet is fallible, and many believe it.”

You take all the fun out of the quote! The idea is to accept it as is and contemplate reasons and senses of meaning on why it might be true (even if the quote is errant, make that functionally inerrant.)

 

[amgid]

arieh0310:

Try posting your comments in the EO sub-forum and prepare to be flamed. The EO idea of theosis is nowhere near the LDS idea of eternal progression. I would argue the the ECFs bear a striking resemblence to modern Catholic theology (their writings are what is bringing me into the Church). Nowhere do I see a belief in a plurality of gods. A small group believed in the preexistent soul but their ideas do not in any way resemble the LDS doctrine.

What the EO believes or believes not is not the most relevant here. They are an apostate church like the rest of Christendom is. What the early Christian Fathers believed, and how they expressed it, is a lot more significant. At that time the Christian Church had not yet drifted away from the original teachings of the Church as it has today, or as it did in subsequent centuries. These quotes are from Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers (London: Oxford University Press, 1956, repr. 1958). Author’s name and page number are given after each quote:

… 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. (Clement of Alexandria, p. 244.)

… the Word, I say, of God, who became man just that you might learn from a man how it may be that man should become God. (Clement of Alexandria, p. 244.)

The Son in his kindness generously imparted deification to others… who are transformed through him into gods, as images of the prototype… the Word is the archetype of the many images. (Origen, p. 274.)

For the Word was not degraded by receiving a body, so that he should seek to “receive” God’s gift. Rather he deified what he put on; and, more than that, he bestowed this gift upon the race of men. (Athanasius, p. 384.)

… If the works of the Godhead had not taken place by means of the body, man would not have been made divine. (Athanasius, p. 399.)

The Word was made man in order that we might be made divine. (Athanasius, p. 404)
The way the doctrine is expressed here is clear and unambiguous. I am sure you will try to twist them around too to suit your own purpose, but nobody is going to be convinced by that. The clarity of the language as expressed are not easily twistable.

amgid

 

[arieh0310]

amgid:

What the EO believes or believes not is not the most relevant here. They are an apostate church like the rest of Christendom is. What the early Christian Fathers believed, and how they expressed it, is a lot more significant.

The way the doctrine is expressed here is clear and unambiguous. I am sure you will try to twist them around too to suit your own purpose, but nobody is going to be convinced by that. The clarity of the language as expressed are not easily twistable.

amgid

amgid, a quote from you:
*
“Origen and many early Christian Fathers believed in the preexistence of the spirits. Almost all of them believed in the deification of man and the plurality of gods. This doctrine is still accepted by the Orthodox Church”.*

I was simply responding to your error that the EO church believes in a plurality of gods and your definition of deification. The doctrine of theosis in EO and deification in RCC is in complete harmony with the quotes you listed. By baptism we are made one with the Body of Christ and by His grace are conformed to his image. What would otherwise seem absurd, that fallen, sinful man may become holy as God is holy, has been made possible through Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate. Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis - it is not possible for any created being to become, ontologically, God.

By the way, it would be much easier to look up your quotes in context if you would post the footnotes from the book rather than the book page numbers. The copy/paste methodology to prove your point makes it very easy to pull the quote out of context.

 

[BJRumph]

Just to focus no one of your quotes:

The Word was made man in order that we might be made divine. (Athanasius, p. 404)

Note that, even in the contextless use here, that this in no way suggests that man makes himself divine (the lds position), but rather quite clearly expresses God’s hand (through the Word [not “word” or teaching], who is Christ/God) in making us divine. It does not present the positon that we make ourselves divine (afterall, we don’t make ourselves, even in LDS thought). The same can be correctly said of any of the other quotes you gave us.

God makes us divine through His Grace, or His active exertion. He does the work of making us divine.

This is fundamentally different from the posit that God merely tells us how to become divine, and that we become divine by following his instrucitons, or even the concept that God is “bound” to deify us if we live his commandments (a magical/superstitious veiw of the relationship between God & Man which still places our deification/divinization in our hands, not God’s).

That God had descended His hand to us, to pull us out of our self-made condition, and up to Him, as Athanasius is saying in your use of his words, still does not suggest that we have any part in this divine process, that we can make the journey ourselves.

 

[FCEGM]

arieh0310:

The doctrine of theosis in EO and deification in RCC is in complete harmony with the quotes you listed. By baptism we are made one with the Body of Christ and by His grace are conformed to his image. . .[etc.]

Excellent points, Arieh. To follow up, here’s a good site addressing Theosis:

home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/grace3.html

 

[mormon_fool]

arieh0310:

Wow! That is eye openning! What that boils down to is only what the prophet gets right is infallible, something anyone can do. Thank God for the infallible Magisterium who promulgates the whole truth without error or revision.

How about explaining to me why you like infallibility so much? Isn’t this doctrine a rather late development? What traces of this idea do you find in the ECFs?

In forming a personal best view of Catholicism, I can see how it might be appealing to have some final arbitrar of truth on faith and morals in written form somewhere on a variety of issues.The infallibility doctrine seems to quell contention and bring people peace of mind. It stems the tide of moral relativity we see these days.

It takes an act of faith to accept it, though. It can’t be proven through human rationality because in constructing a proof, a human could possibly make an error. To me, it would either have to be a revealed principle or an obvious one flowing from an authorative position. I would worry about infallible writings that “break instead of bend” but I am confident that most items could be dealt with through interpretation.

Any thoughts?
fool

 

[amgid]

arieh0310:

I was simply responding to your error that the EO church believes in a plurality of gods and your definition of deification. The doctrine of theosis in EO and deification in RCC is in complete harmony with the quotes you listed. By baptism we are made one with the Body of Christ and by His grace are conformed to his image. What would otherwise seem absurd, that fallen, sinful man may become holy as God is holy, has been made possible through Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate. Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis - it is not possible for any created being to become, ontologically, God.

Again, what the EO and the Catholic Churches believe is not terribly relevant here. What is interesting is that that doctrine of deification taught by the Early Christian Fathers matches perfectly the doctrine taught by the LDS Church. Here is the authentic LDS doctrine of deification. Notice how the theology of it blends in perfectly with that taught by the ECFs (and the Bible’s):

D&C: 76:

50 And again we bear record–for we saw and heard, and this is the testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just–

51 They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given–

52 That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;

53 And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true.

54 They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.

55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things–

56 They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;

57 And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son.

58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God–

59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

60 And they shall overcome all things.

D&C 132:

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.

22 For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me.

23 But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and shall receive your exaltation; that where I am ye shall be also.

---

36 Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.

37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
I doubt if the EO and Catholic doctrines of deification (whatever that is) matches the ECF’s as closely as the LDS doctrine does.

By the way, it would be much easier to look up your quotes in context if you would post the footnotes from the book rather than the book page numbers. The copy/paste methodology to prove your point makes it very easy to pull the quote out of context.

I had a look, and there was nothing in the footnotes that would be of any interest to you. Henry Bettenson is reputable and respected scholar. He is not in the business of putting a Catholic or Protestant spin on his scholarship. He is out to tell the story as it is, without a Catholic or Protestant sideshow. If that is what you are looking for, you will be disappointed.

amgid

 

[arieh0310]

amgid:

Again, what the EO and the Catholic Churches believe is not terribly relevant here. What is interesting is that that doctrine of deification taught by the Early Christian Fathers matches perfectly the doctrine taught by the LDS Church. Here is the authentic LDS doctrine of deification. Notice how the theology of it blends in perfectly with that taught by the ECFs (and the Bible’s):

Those selected quotes of yours if interpreted according to orthodox Christian theology wouldn’t be troubling. What is troubling is that the LDS idea of exaltation is as far as the east is to the west to the doctrine of theosis or deification. What orthodox Christians have a problem with is the LDS definition of exaltation. Quotes like these put into perspective how different our theology is:

Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, p.69 - p.70:

THE STRAITNESS OF THE WAY. Mortality is the testing or proving ground for exaltation to find out who among the children of God are worthy to become Gods themselves, and the Lord has informed us that "few there be that find it."

Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, p.97 - p.98:

ALL EXALTED MEN BECOME GODS. To believe that Adam is a god should not be strange to any person who accepts the Bible. When Jesus was accused of blasphemy because he claimed to be the Son of God, he answered the Jews: "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

Joseph Smith taught a plurality of gods, and that man by obeying the commandments of God and keeping the whole law will eventually reach the power and exaltation by which he also will become a god.

Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.9:

What is eternal life? It is to have "a continuation of the seeds forever and ever." No one receives eternal life except those who receive the exaltation. Eternal life is the greatest gift of God; immortality is not.

Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.39:

SONS OF GOD BECOME GODS. If the faithful, who keep the commandments of the Father, are his sons, then they are heirs of the kingdom and shall receive of the fulness of the Father's glory, even until they become like the Father. And how can they be perfect as their Father in heaven is perfect if they are not like him? . . . And if they receive his fulness and his glory, and if "all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs," how can they receive these blessings and not become gods? They cannot.

Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.44:

Parents will have eternal claim upon their posterity and will have the gift of eternal increase, if they obtain the exaltation. This is the crowning glory in the kingdom of God, and they will have no end. When the Lord says they will have no end, he means that all who attain to this glory will have the blessing of the continuation of the "seeds" forever. Those who fail to obtain this blessing come to the "deaths," which means that they will have no increase, forever. All who obtain this exaltation will have the privilege of completing the full measure of their existence, and they will have a posterity that will be as innumerable as the stars of heaven.

If you want salvation in the fullest, that is exaltation in the kingdom of God, so that you may become his sons and his daughters, you have got to go into the temple of the Lord and receive these holy ordinances which belong to that house, which cannot be had elsewhere.

Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.48:
The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fulness of his kingdom. In other words we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fulness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring. We will have an endless eternity for this.

 

[arieh0310]

and these:

B. H. Roberts, The Mormon Doctrine of Deity, p.276-284, quotes approvingly Orson Pratt’s view of heaven:

'We would find, were we to carry this subject from world to world, from our world to another, even to the endless ages of eternity, that there never was a time but what there was a Father and Son. In other words when you entertain that which is endless, you exclude the idea of first being, a first world; the moment you admit of a first, you limit the idea of endless. * * *

'Says one, "this is incomprehensible." It may be so in some respects. We can admit, though, that duration is endless, for it is impossible for man to conceive of a limit to it. If duration is endless there can never be a first minute, a first hour, or first period; endless duration in the past is made up of a continuation of endless successive moments—it had no beginning. Precisely so with regard to this endless succession of personages; there never will be a time when fathers, and sons, and worlds will not exist; neither was there ever a period through all the past ages of duration, but what there was a world, and a Father and Son, a redemption and exaltation to the fullness and power of the Godhead.

. . .

'How very plain it is when we once learn about our future heaven. We do not have to pray, according to the Methodists, for the Lord to take us to a land beyond time and space, the Saints, secure abode. How inconsistent to look for a heaven beyond space! The heaven of the Saints is something we can look forward to in the confident hope of realizing our inheritances and enjoying them forever, when the earth becomes sanctified and made new. And there, as here, we will spread forth, and multiply our children. How long? For eternity. What, resurrected Saints have children? Yes, the same as our God, who is the Father of our spirits; so you, if you are faithful to the end, will become fathers to your sons and daughters, who will be as innumerable as the sands upon the sea shore; they will be your children, and you will be their heavenly fathers, the same as our heavenly Father is Father to us, and they will belong to your kingdoms through all the vast ages of eternity, the same as we will belong to our father's kingdom.'

Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.2:

GODHOOD

Logically and naturally, the ultimate desire of a loving Supreme Being is to help his children enjoy all that he enjoys. For Latter-day Saints, the term "godhood" denotes the attainment of such a state—one of having all divine attributes and doing as God does and being as God is. Such a state is to be enjoyed by all exalted, embodied, intelligent beings (see Deification; Eternal Progression; Exaltation; God; Perfection). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all resurrected and perfected mortals become gods (cf. Gen. 3:22; Matt. 5:48). They will dwell again with God the Father, and live and act like him in endless worlds of happiness, power, love, glory, and knowledge; above all, they will have the power of procreating endless lives. Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus Christ attained godhood (see Christology) and that he marked the path and led the way for others likewise to become exalted divine beings by following him (cf. John 14:3).

Bruce R. McConkie, The Millennial Messiah, p.708:

Of those who enter the Lord's order of matrimony and who keep their covenants ..., the Lord says: "They shall pass by the angels, and the gods, ...to their exaltation and glory in all things, ...which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever." That is to say, eternal life consists of two things: (1) the continuation of the family unit in eternity, which means a continuation of the seeds or the everlasting begetting of children; and (2) the receipt of the fulness of the glory of the Father, which is all power in heaven and on earth.’

 

[arieh0310]

and these:

Milton R. Hunter, Pearl of Great Price Commentary, p.144-145:

Later the Prophet Joseph explained what the revelation [D&C 132] meant by the statement, "which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever." He pointed out that the Gods were to be parents of spirit-children just as our Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother were the parents of the people of this earth. Following are the words of the Prophet:

    Except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity, ...they will cease to increase when they die; that is, they will not have any children after the resurrection. But those who are married by the power and authority of the Priesthood in this life, and continue without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost, will continue to increase and have children in the celestial glory.

Milton R. Hunter, LDS Conference Report, April 1949, p.71:

The Prophet Joseph Smith explained that this continuation of "the seeds" forever and ever, meant the power of procreation; in other words, the power to beget spirit children on the same principle as we were born to our Heavenly Parents, God the Eternal Father and our Eternal Mother. Therefore, a man cannot receive the highest exaltation without a woman, his wife, nor can a woman be exalted without her husband. That is the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the plan of salvation.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, p.85 - p.86, Orson Hyde, October 6, 1854:

When the servants of God and their wives go to heaven there is an eternal union, and they will multiply and replenish the world to which they are going.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.22, p.125, George Q. Cannon, October 31, 1880:

Every man and every woman who prays unto the Father, who is in the habit of doing so, expresses that desire in his or her prayer--that we may be counted worthy to receive celestial glory and exaltation in the presence of God and the Lamb. ... When we talk about celestial glory, we talk of the condition of endless increase; if we obtain celestial glory in the fullest sense of the word, then we have wives and children in eternity, we have the power of endless lives granted unto us, the power of propagation that will endure through all eternity, all being fathers and mothers in eternity; fathers of fathers, and mothers of mothers, kings and queens, priests and priestesses, and shall I say more? Yes, all becoming gods.

 

[arieh0310]

mormon fool:

What traces of this idea do you find in the ECFs?

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Scroll down to “Proof from Tradition”.

 

[arieh0310]

mormon fool:

It takes an act of faith to accept it, though. It can’t be proven through human rationality because in constructing a proof, a human could possibly make an error. To me, it would either have to be a revealed principle or an obvious one flowing from an authorative position. I would worry about infallible writings that “break instead of bend” but I am confident that most items could be dealt with through interpretation.

Any thoughts?
fool

Faith is a determination of the will and the intellect. Most supernatural mysteries of God cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (that is why they are mysterious), but the intellect can be satisfied to a point where you do not need to force the will. God never expects us to have absolute blind faith, He gives us enough to satisfy reason. One of these mysteries that can be satified by reason is infallibility. If Christ established a Church that the gates of hell will not prevail against, is it so hard to believe that the head of that Chuch would be given a supernatural gift not to promulgate error regarding faith and morals?

 

[mormon_fool]

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Scroll down to “Proof from Tradition”.

Thank you for providing this link. I read it in its entirety, of course, some of it went over my head. I will refrain from critiquing it at this time. It would be bad form to ask for information and then use it against my benefactor.

I will just say good things about the article for now. The article helped me realize why so much weight is put into the Matthew passages as a guarantee of Church survival. The infallibility principle is one way of visualizing this happening. The apologetic answers to Protestant attacks were impressive. They do resemble mormon apologetics when they distance themselves from less than infallible events and documents. For example, this or that pope was unduly being influenced by politics or being deceived by a heretic. If I was a Catholic I would find these explanations acceptable.

Interesting that the definitions of inspiration and revelation seem to guarantee infallibility.

In all it was a very nifty article in its wide selection of topics. One feels that all the major pieces of the infallibility doctrine have been addressed.

Thanks,
fool

 

[amgid]

arieh0310:

Those selected quotes of yours if interpreted according to orthodox Christian theology wouldn’t be troubling. What is troubling is that the LDS idea of exaltation is as far as the east is to the west to the doctrine of theosis or deification.

The Lord did not reveal the new dispensation of the gospel through the prophet Joseph Smith in order to establish “orthodox Christian theology”. If there was nothing wrong with “orthodox Christian theology,” such a Restoration would not have been necessary. He did so in order to correct the many errors that entered into Christian theology during the many centuries of Apostasy, and also to add many new truths that hadn’t been revealed before, or which had been lost.

What orthodox Christians have a problem with is the LDS definition of exaltation. Quotes like these put into perspective how different our theology is:

I have read the quotes, and I would make two points in regard to them.

Firstly, as I have stated earlier in other threads, strictly speaking LDS doctrine is that which is contained in LDS scripture, such as the quotes that I had given. Others are free to understand, interpret, and comment on those scriptures according to the light and intelligence that they possess, and there is nothing wrong with doing that; but if you want to know the doctrine in its purity, that is the source that you must refer to.

Secondly, I have carefully read through the quotes you had given, and I find the first five quotes (all but the last one) you had given in your first post (#34), from the Doctrines of Salvation by Joseph Fielding Smith, to be in harmony with the scriptural quotes which I had given. I would say they are sound interpretations of LDS doctrine as revealed in LDS scripture. Thanks for taking the trouble to quoting them. If they are not in harmony with “orthodox Christian theology,” I am sorry about that! The problem is with “orthodox Christian theology,” not with LDS doctrine!

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 refer you again and again to the quotes I had given in posts #17 and #32 in the thread called “Can a ‘true prophet’ have false revelations”. The standard works are the ultimate guide. All comments and interpretations must be tested against that standard for their validity to be determined. The scripture only says a “continuation of seeds”. It says nothing about having “spirit children”. I see a difference between the two. That is a gloss added to the doctrine, which has no scriptural validity. It has been added by somebody who thought he had figured out what “continuation of seeds” means. But that is their opinion. It has no validity as scripture.

amgid